tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 6, 2016 12:30pm-6:01pm EDT
and the attack several weeks ago. can you explain about the russian efforts being more defined? there were reports that the syrian regime along with the russians had launched an assault against an area south ofaleppo. that does not seem like it's necessarily isis. that they are supporting the governments assault on civilians, on opposition forces? one other question on syria. i have four kids. i have always told my kids that actions speak louder than words. for me to figure out or any of us to figure out what the
russians intent and what the what iregime intent is, refer to as far as their actions and where we are seeing their their activity, it's confined to a geographical area that is not presenting a with theith our fight coalition's fight against isl, if that's clear. >> are they actually striking isis? what is your assessment? >> where the concentric circles -- whether isl is being struck by the russians, we will happily accept that. it has not become a hindrance from our operation. >> i was struck i the answer to the last question.
they struck a tactical unit and i was curious -- was there something specific about the strike we should know? comfortt all, it's my level of talking about it. from a standpoint of committing it to memory, not anything other than that. to be quite honest, that's where i'm coming from. could you provide us with a clear picture about the size of the sdf democratic forces? can you confirm the numbers are 40,000? 30,000-30,0 >> i don't think i can can provide you a clear number. won't even be as specific as
sdf. i will back up and say the coalition and contributing members of the coalition which is inclusive of several , that range ofs numbers is probably pretty close. it would be disingenuous for me to come down to a number. >> how much do you think the arab component is among the coalition forces? 20%? i would be making something up if i answered. i just don't know. >> you mentioned the significant loss that isl has faced lately. q believe the u.s. and the coalition have reached a turning point in the fight? >> as i stated up front, i think
there is momentum and i would characterize it as significant momentum. isl is still a dangerous enemy. of irrational actions that present danger to many innocent people. -- have we turned the corner? i don't know if we've turned the corner but i know that the trend is going in the right direction. we are committed and the coalition is committed to accelerating that where we can. my last follow-up -- out ofime is pushing isl
the suburbs of primera. fromare also pushing isl the northeastern side of syria. as a military commander, do you you wouldat one day need to communicate with the assad regime through other channels? my role as a military officer and outside of the operational piece, those discussions are diplomatic discussions, political discussions and they are happening. iny are being played out alternatives are being addressed. it's not something that i'm involved with day to day or even at all. mark --que question yes, sir? >> going back to strikes that
were not planned, can you speak to the u.s. ground force that targeted five al qaeda militants last night? i won't civic way to that but i will say that the authority to aq have stayed in place. to execute those strikes. >> the second follow-up is unrelated. there has been reports coming out of theater about more u.s. syrian armyowing to divisions that previously we have not worked with in the past. there are pickup trucks and heavy machine guns and mortars. have we changed how much we are equipping the syrian rebels we support question mark >> the easy answer is no.
, it isare equipping transactional dependent. whatever force that we are supporting with equipment, there stated objectives on the ground and we equipment that they can execute that mission. we evaluate at the end of it. not an unfettered support of arms and supplies. -- are weplying supplying people we had not supplied in the past? don't, not as a group, inare not supplying people different groups overall. it's no different than we were in the past.
ok. i want to go back to firebase. has there been any similar bases put up in iraq or syria since that time? should the american public accept that future such compounds will appear in iraq and/or syria? its dependent upon what's happening on the ground in a military campaign. as the iraqi security forces progress toward isolating mosul, there may be a situation in which there is another base that is opened or reopened from years
that would be used in the same manner as a fire support base behind the front. >> has that happened yet? >> not to my knowledge. >> there are reports emerging that ali ambari was killed. do we have any information whether he has been killed or struck? >> i cannot confirm that. i can't confirm that. about territorial losses that isis has suffered any mentioned that isis routinely will strike almost immediately when it suffers losses to signal that it has not been debilitated. do you have a sense of how much of a backlog or an estimation in terms of strikes physically in the west that they have in
stock. i think it will help address how the territory loss might not be mitigating in the short term strikes on western targets. in terms ofa sense how much of a backlog may have? >> if we had a sense of that, we would stop it. we don't. rational act or they don't behave like we would behave. likewould not behave common, decent people would behave. forre constantly looking threat of these kind of attacks throughout the globe. if we have an estimate of what's cooking, i don't think we do. >> can you address broadly when
isis loses territory like homera and other places like a few days ago, how much does that limit their ability to conduct training and committing strikes as long as they hold rocca and mosul where foreign fighters have come in and trained? >> can you repeat the question? >> when you lose places, when isis loses places like homera and other smaller towns, as long as they hold mosul, are they not able to continue to pose a significant threat to the west? matter? does palmera most of the training of foreign fighters of gone through mosul. degrades significantly.
it degrades their ability to move freely on the battlefield. we are taking away their mobility and their agility on the battlefield, the coalition has. it does degraded. does it reduce to zero? no. but it definitely degrades it. yes, ma'am? >> i wanted to go back on the because i was struck by the president yesterday saying we should no longer tolerate the kinds of positioning that is enabled by isis having headquarters in rocca and mosul. if the guidance is not to tolerate the position of isis to headquarters,its can you go back over the pentagon's thinking and status
of this? plan to an operational get isis out of rocca even if you cannot say what it is. where are you on getting them booted out. presidentay that the asked the secretary of defense and the chairman to work on accelerants, to excel or the campaign against isl. options are being withssed and being planned the leadership in the department. been --tions have not they are being discussed also with the president. options toving him
obviously,t are it the options are being addressed with are: and are partners in syria. ultimately, our overall strategy of fighting is support to those fighting on the ground. do you have an operational plan yet to get isis out of rocca? thatcannot answer question. i am not qualified to answer that question. yes, ma'am? >> last question. >> do you know why the fire base was renamed? i do know why but i cannot remember why right now, i'm
sorry. >> one more and then we go. cap level of american troops is 3870 but it has come out that the numbers are higher because of temporary assignments. can you explain what the joint staff is thinking? tdy in you define as a theater and was the actual number of american troops in iraq now? which ones are actually being sent questio? answer thisman exact question we can have ago. the rules that we use in the process were uses the same when we have used for about 15 years now as far as fml boots on the ground.
things like swap outs of troops, we don't double count. like military security forces for embassy personnel, that does not count toward fml and then there are periods of tdy time. we know there is more than 3750 in iraq at any one time but it's ofng done along the lines those business rules. i think the chairman answer that better than i did but that's essentially what he said. 1000 more? >> i cannot say. >> thank you. host [captions copyright nationl cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] another briefing for you next on c-span, where live at the
brady press briefing room at the white house. the briefing with josh earnest should get underway shortly and reporters are assembling will have a live once it starts on c-span. in the meantime, rep above yesterday's wisconsin primary from today's washington journal. jonathan swann is a national political reporter for the hill newspaper to break out the wisconsin primaries and look at the road ahead. you wrote an article yesterday that ted cruz and bernie sanders were looking for game changing wins in wisconsin, 24 hours later. has the game change? it's guest: it's hard to know how much it's changed. ted cruz and bernie sanders performed well. i had a conversation with the top pollster in wisconsin and he was expecting a standard victory by four percentage points. looks like bernie sanders has one by 13 which is quite important.
it's a state he should win. it's a lot of strong progressive history. any centere or should have won but the fact that he won by more than 10 points will give his supporters some comfort. ted cruz slightly over performed expectations. the important story is that it makes a contested convention on the republican side much more likely. vetting agency say we are likely to go into a contested convention. host: some said that bernie sanders would win by two or three points. what is the reason for the overachievement? guest: we don't quite know yet. the thing with bernie sanders that he needs to do is a tight victory is not a victory.
he needs to eat up a lot of ground on the delegate count. he needed to win last night by 60% of points. that gives you an idea of the magnitude of victories he needs. he still felt well short with african-americans. but in wisconsin, it did not have a huge bearing. looking ahead to new york, he needs the minority vote. it is such a huge problem for bernie sanders. i think he lost 40 points last night among african-americans. bernie sanders took 14 delegates. the magic number is 2383. bernie sanders behind by about
700 delegates right now. if you factor in the superdelegates. new york, obviously, well over 100 delegates and play -- in play. the caucus is happening this saturday. look to wyoming. that's the next contest. the caucus is happening this saturday. what are the expectations for that caucus? guest: there has been no polling out of wyoming. nate silver and the 38 have not even a projection for it. it is a caucus state, so logic would tell you that bernie sanders could do well there and probably win. it would concern if he doesn't win because caucuses tended to have more intense, enthusiastic, and often smaller voter turnouts, which tends to favor bernie sanders. i think the main thing wyoming will do -- it is insignificant in terms of delegate amounts, as last night was, but if he wins, he would have won seven out of eight of the last contest. so he can spin it for another week leading into new york.
voters will think there is something going on here like momentum. host: in new york, i sent over 100, but it is 291 delegates available on the democratic side. the colorado republican conventions, the actual convention, is happening on saturday. explain what is happening in colorado for republicans right now. guest: what people need to keep in mind is there are sort of two tracks going on for the republicans. one is the one you see every so often, like last night, where people actually vote. the winner gives a speech. there is a press conference. the newspapers say trump wins or cruz wins. the other one is quieter. people forget that elegance are actually human beings -- people forget that delegates are actually human beings, and most
of them have not been selected yet. at the republican convention, they will select who will fill these delegate posions. oncoming ted cruz is showing that voice organizational strength. what we're seeing is donald trump is a being outmaneuvered at that delegate level. ted cruz is actually winning delegates. that is something to look out for in colorado this weekend. it is truly a pure organizational effort. if history is any guide, ted cruz will do better than donald trump. host: if this is confusing for
viewers, we have about 45 minutes to break it on. jonathan swan is with "the hill" newspaper. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. and we have a special line for wisconsin voters. caller: good morning. something that is very puzzling that i have seen and have been paying attention to with the major media and some of the blogs is the complete dehumanization of trump. you see pretty much everybody lineup against this guy, everybody, from the major media and even aipac, which he spoke at. and the gop brought mitt romney out to discredit him. his own party. here we have a man who appears to be pretty much going against the grain in terms of a
globalist policy. here is a man that has a strong nationalistic policy. it appears that the gop machine, and even the dnc, do not want somebody who is going to upset the apple cart, who is going to roll back globalism, and push forward policies which would affect free-trade. my question to mr. swan is, do you think donald trump is unpredictable and dangerous to the power elites and not so much the american people? thank you. guest: well, i cannot speak for the american people. i would never try to do that, especially with my accent. but i think your first point is certainly correct in that republican elites are terrified of donald trump. i mean, one thing shows that more than anything.
i spent yesterday on the hill talking to a number of republicans, and ted cruz -- i mean, you cannot possibly understand how despised and hated he is by republicans on the hill. they are now viewing ted cruz in an increasingly favorable light. ted cruz was described as poison at donald trump as being shocked, but now they are saying they would rather ted cruz. the republican establishment is making their choice, and i think your assessment of globalism is spot on. donald trump has taken a view that the united states needs to revive its trade policies and revise its immigration policies. if you look at someone like speaker of the house paul ryan is diametrically opposed to donald trump on those issues. host: last night in a victory
speech, talking about efforts ahead of the general election. here is a bit of that speech. [video clip] senator cruz: i ask you to join us as we continue to unite republicans, independents, libertarians, reagan democrats, and americans who care about our future, who want jobs, freedom, and security. just as we have done in wisconsin, we are doing all across this country. [cheers and applause] senator cruz: and governor, let me tell you, i look forward to coming back to the state of wisconsin this fall. [cheers and applause] senator cruz: and in november, for the first time since 1984, painting the badger state bright republican red.
[cheers and applause] [crowd chanting: cruz] senator cruz: so let me just say, hillary, get ready, here we come. host: the governor that ted cruz turned to was governor scott walker, who endorsed ted cruz. governor walker was gone after by donald trump for doing that. how much did that endorsement and that back and forth with trump play into last night's results? guest: speaking to the top pollsters and strategists on the ground in wisconsin, one of the described it as weapons grade
stupidity for donald trump to attack scott walker. people forget, outside of wisconsin, yes, scott walker is a divisive figure nationally. yes, he is despised by democrats in wisconsin. that he is still loved by wisconsin republicans. his approval rating among wisconsin primary voters in the republican party is high. he has an 80% approval rating. so to attack the sitting governor, not many people think that was an intelligent strategy. of course, scott walker time to his endorsement of ted cruz for maximum impact. we do not know. we do not know, it added four percentage points to his vote, but it certainly helped. host: a democrat on the line. tennessee, good morning. caller: good morning. i have got a couple of comments to make. my old grand-pappy raised me
that i owed a minimum of four years of my life to this country. i did my service. when i got out, i spent over 20 years out on the road driving a big rig. after i got my hazardous pay. i was doing my part to keep this country going. it is my opinion that this mr. trump feller would make a good used car self men, because he -- salesman because he says what he knows people want to hear -- would make a good used car salesman, because he says what he knows people want to hear. in my opinion, he has been using our constitution for toilet paper, and he ought to be tarred and feathered. i hope you folks have good day, and i appreciate hearing what you have to say. host: kris is up next in wisconsin, that line for wisconsin voters. kris is an independent. who did you vote for yesterday?
caller: hi, this is a very difficult election for me. my husband and i are both very hard workers. before the election, my husband and i said, who are we going to vote for? to me, the candidates are so extreme. we have donald trump, who wants to eliminate social security. we have bernie sanders, who wants to pay for everybody's tuition. we have hillary clinton, who has a history of dishonesty. i mean, this is a very, very, very tough election. really, the candidates, even talking with some of our peers,
it was like -- where do we go? who is really going to be the best candidate this year? this is a difficult, difficult choice, because they are so extreme. host: what does it come down to for you? caller: well, after looking at all the stances, i actually favored rubio. unfortunately, he did not have a chance here at the end. so i voted for cruz, but, honestly, i -- it was not somebody that i totally, totally back at this point because i am still so unsure of all of their
stances. we really have to take a hard look at where these candidates -- what they are wanting to do to our country. host: you mentioned marco rubio. marco rubio and the delegates he accumulated early on in the process could still be a factor come convention time if donald trump does not enter the convention with that 1237 number needed. guest: i was looking at the overall delegate count this morning. marco rubio is still ahead of john kasich feared marco rubio had more delegates than john kasich, so, yes, they matter, but the misconception is the idea that marco rubio can tell these people what to do. it will be a free-for-all.
170-odd people who are unbound, and it is up to ted cruz, donald trump, and john kasich to twist arms and get the support. host: looking at the superdelegates, the unpledged delegates who could change their votes. can't super delegates change their minds ahead of the convention? there is a story in "the wall street journal" about super delegates coming under pressure right now in light of the momentum the bernie sanders campaign is starting to show. guest: yes, a superdelegate is simply someone who can do whatever they want. quite often, they say, yes, we are supporting hillary clinton, but that does not necessarily mean they will end up supporting hillary clinton. if bernie sanders, by some as medical miracle for him,
defeated hillary clinton in pledged delegates, there will be a number of superdelegates that will be under pressure to say, well, my state voted 70% sanders over clinton, so am i then subverting the will of the people bicycle -- by supporting clinton? so the answer is yes, they can switch their votes. host: jonathan swan of "the hill" newspaper. the home page this morning and you can read the story at thehill.com or call in and ask a question. the phone numbers, republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. democrats, 202-748-8000.
bonnie is a republican in maryland, good morning. caller: i am so sick of this trump. >> good afternoon, everybody. nice to see you. i have some words at the top he forget to your questions. months, the administration has been warning about the risk posed by the zika virus, particularly the risk it poses to pregnant women. in early january, in the midst of a significant snowstorm that many of you may recall, the president convened his top advisers to formulate a proactive response to this epidemic which has spread across the americas. in february, the administration formally submitted a request to congress for $1.9 billion for activities scientists and experts say are critically important to combating the zika.
this includes funding for mosquito control which is important now that the weather is beginning to warm up. it also includes funding for things -- not today in washington -- the funding also included investments in disease detection and testing, vaccine development, and support for maternal women's health. just last week, the administration convened a summit in atlanta top state and local health officials, nonprofit officials, and health care experts. we heard from state that they are keenly aware of the threat that the disease poses and many do not have the money they need for basic tests that would prevent the spread. over this time, congress has done nothing. we know that we cannot continue to fund a robust response to this disease without adequate resources particularly for our
partners in state of local government who bear much of the burden of fighting zika. earlier today, the admin station announced we would reprogram about 600 million program -- six and a million dollars to bolster the zika response. we have consistently said an available option for the government was to repurpose some funds that would not undermine our fight against that deadly disease. we also told congress that just fundssome of the ebola would be insufficient. that should be an indication that today's action to reprogram $600 million is a temporary tax and not at all a long-term solution. since the beginning of the year, our concerns about zika have only increased because of new things we have learned about the disease.
first, we have learned that sexual transmission of the virus is actually more common than was initially believed. second, we learned that the impact of the virus on fetal brain development is likely starker and more serious than first understood area third, in the united states, the geographical range of the mosquito the carries is virus is significantly broader than our initial estimates. as we learn more about all of these things, we continue to be concerned about the potential impact of his virus on the public health situation in the united states. let me leave you with a couple of last thoughts. this is actually a unique scenario. we have advance warning of a disease. it was difficult to predict in upance that ebola would wind in a patient that presented
himself at american hospital. that was something that few people predicted. everybody now is protecting months in advance that we will see more cases of zika in the united states. that means we have an opportunity to do something about it in advance. about the risks posed by ebola, many of you legitimately observe why the government as not done more to prepare for this situation. we have an opportunity to prepare for the zika virus but congress has completely abdicated their responsibility to follow through on a proposal be administration put forward based on the advice of scientific experts. the administration will do what we can right now to fight this disease by shifting funds temporarily from the fight against ebola into the fight against zika.
state and local officials are trying to prepare their communities to fight zika, now it's time for congress to do its job for a change. kathleen, ithat, is started ? >> i will go back to the topic of yesterday. [indiscernible] you said the regulations were charged at that transaction. as it already had an impact? >> we make it a habit of not commenting on individual transactions. that is true when transactions or potential ones are announced. that is also true when potential transactions are killed. in this case, i don't have a reaction to the specific transaction. we were clear yesterday that the
steps the treasury department was taking is not focused on anyone particular transaction but rather was focused on a loophole that we knew certain corporate interests had taken advantage of overlooking to take advantage of. to take it ofking and they took steps to close that loophole. that does not eliminate the need for congress to take action to completely close the corporate inversion loophole or a series of loopholes. when he congressional action in the form of legislation to do that definitively. topic of taxader evasion, i'm wondering if you saw senator sanders comment about the panama papers. he brought up his opposition to the u.s.-panama free-trade agreement. he had warned it would be a stamp of approval for panama as a tax shelter.
[indiscernible] >> the simple facts are that the u.s.-panama free-trade agreement did not apply to tax measures. one reason for that is that in 2011, under president obama, the united states and panama did conclude a tax information exchange agreement. these are the kinds of agreements the united states maintains with other countries to promote tax transparency and create a major disincentive for u.s. citizens to use a country like panama to circumvent tax laws. what essentially that means is that this exchange of information between the united states and panama gives enforcement authorities in the united states a greater clarity into financial transactions by u.s.lace in panama
citizens or entities. similar -- this is not dissimilar from information sharing agreements with 112 other countries around the world as a result of the foreign account tax compliant act. president obama signed this into law in 2010. this has promote a greater transparency in the context of international financial transactions. that's important because it will allow the international community in the united states to do things like fight corruption, to crack down on individuals trying to use shell corporations to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. it is also a way for us to detect individuals or entities trying to circumvent u.s. financial sanctions. this greater transparency is important to our efforts and at something that president obama has fought for in the context of tca but also reaching
agreement with animal specifically to do a better job of exchanging information related to these financial transactions. >> [indiscernible] >> i did not see his entire comments. that the are u.s.-panama free-trade agreement does not apply to tax measures and the reason it was not necessary to write that into the is we already had this existing tax information exchange agreement with panama that promote important transparency between our two governments when it comes to these kind of financial transactions. >> one more on the trip to chicago. i thought you would have something more to give us an what we can expect. not this is going to
be an ongoing effort from the white house to keep the issue in the news. >> the president considers confirming merrick garland to the supreme court a top priority. this is an important constitutional responsibility that the president has fulfilled. in terms of nominating somebody with impeccable legal credentials to fill the vacancy on the supreme court. even republicans have described him as a consensus candidate. he is somebody who has more federal judicial experience than any other nominee to the supreme court in american history. throughout that long career on the federal bench, chief judge garland has demonstrated a commitment to interpreting the law as a judge should not seeking to advance himself politically. this is the kind of person exactly who is worthy of lifetime employment on the supreme court and we will continue to make the case to republicans in the united states
senate that they should fulfill their constitutional responsibility to give him a fair hearing and a timely up or down vote. it's as simple as that. the president will certainly make that case tomorrow and the president will continue to make that case until the senate finally starts to do its job. du expected judge garland will make that case in some form or another? hopefully, he will have the opportunity to do that in the context of a senate judiciary committee hearing. that's how the process is supposed to work. we are not all standing up here suggesting that members of the united states senate should just vote to confirm chief judge harlot because the president said so. we are suggesting they should find out for themselves. we have been pleased to see that there are number of numbers -- members of the senate to meet with chief judge garland in private. that's traditionally how this has worked where working to set up additional meetings with
republicans to have those private conversations in the days and weeks ahead. i understand chairman grassley has indicated that next week he is prepared to meet with chief judge garland. that is good news but the point i would make is, why doesn't it have to take place in private? why not have the chief judge go on camera and answer tough questions from the united states senate. that is traditionally the way the process has worked for did our expectation is that the way the process should work this time. i suspect the reason republicans are resisting the process is because they, too, believe that chief judge garland on camera, under oath, facing tough questions would demonstrate for everybody that he actually is worthy of a lifetime appointment on supreme court. unfortunately, republicans are in a position or they are making complaints about this process not based on chief judge garland or his credentials or record or
how he would serve the american people on the supreme court. in fact, you hear republicans saying this is way more to do objectionspolitical to the president of the united states, to president obama. you heard from senator cornyn say he had taken a vow not to confirm another obama judge to the supreme court. you heard ron johnson a few weeks ago acknowledge that if a republican or president, the republicans in the senate would be treatment nominee quite a bit differently than they are now. it's republicans who politicize this process and that the other reason. you ironic that yesterday heard the chairman of the judiciary committee, chuck grassley, do something that's free remarkable in a town and contest like this where we are used to charges and countercharges and disputes across the aisle being traded back and forth. with republicans, sometimes it's charges within the party being traded back and forth.
i think we need to create a whole separate category when you have the senate judiciary committee's chairman go to the floor of the united states senate and criticize the chief justice of the supreme court and accuse him of politicizing the supreme court. that's a pretty remarkable turn of events. it certainly flies in the face of chairman grassley's well-established reputation for being a straight shooter who was focused on getting the job done for the people of iowa. the other thing is, it's also remarkably ironic because it's chairman grassley who is the person who is standing in the way of this process moving forward. it's chairman grassley who is jesting that it's the president -- who is suggesting that it's a presidential election year and he will not do a job and then he turns around and says it's the
fault of the chief justice of the supreme court that the process is gotten politicize? it's a curious explanation. >> thank you. zika, what he you think the white house is not been able to convince congress to push through the funding? has the president made call to lawmakers on zika? have been a number of conversations but i don't have any call to tell you about it. he is talk to senior white house officials about this legislation being a priority. this shouldreason be a partisan dispute. asked me about a range of opportunities were democrats and republican should be able to work together in congress. i went through a lengthy list but i did not include zika funding. there is no reason democrats and
republicans to disagree about the need to protect the american people from an impending epidemic that has serious consequences for pregnant women's country. that truly should be something we could figure out a way to agree on and take the responsible steps necessary to solve this problem. -- inher thing about this some ways, this is a little bit and some of the imperfection of our political system. responsible adults should be able to step back and acknowledge that planning in advance when you're talking about something like this is really important. point, iords, at some don't know when it will be but at some point later this spring yourybe later this summer, news organizations will sound the alarm about the significant
threat that is posed by the zika virus. that will happen. up, as theher warms mosquito population spread, this is something we will have to deal with the president regrets the congress is not fulfill their responsibility to take these steps to fight something that we know is coming. i hope that all of you as you write those stories are member this day. the administration is fighting hard to get congress just to fulfill their basic function and allow the federal government and our experts and state and local officials to take the steps that we know should be taken to begin implement mosquito control programs and try to kill mosquitoes, to start to expand our lab capacity so that we can
track the virus, to start to develop better diagnostics and vaccines and to do the other kinds of things that would allow us to put in place effective prevention tools and where necessary, begin to stockpile necessary resources to respond to this disease. does the white house of lawmakers and states they can work with first question mark >> we will work with anybody who will work with us. some of the data indicates there are a bunch of northern states that may be fortunate enough to avoid seeing this particular mosquito that carries the virus migrating to their states. even those senators should understand how important this is an we are willing to work with anybody, democrat or republican, to move this forward. you are right, most of the pressure should be on senators like states from texas and
mississippi and alabama and florida and georgia, places where we know the climate is warmer, where the mosquito population of this particular mosquito are likely to be larger and, yes, there is all those -- there is something that having common and they are represented by republicans in the united states congress. at some point, they will have to choose whether or not their animosity toward president obama trumps their desire to try to protect pregnant women and their states from this terrible disease. on the tax and version, how would you describe the president's reaction to that? does he see them happy that you ? toi have a reluctance comment on the president's reaction to individual deals. >> this seems like something the president might want to bring in
the governors and we talked earlier about governors in the zika crisis. i understand that the travel and tourism business in the u.s. virgin islands and puerto rico is suffering as a result of this. last season was not what they hoped. go to thepresident administrator of the small business administration and discuss a possible support for the small businesses that exist in those areas being affected by the perception of the zika virus? >> i am not aware of any presidential conversations that involved that topic but i'm confident there's somebody at the small business administration who can give you a sense of what kind of resources or assistance to be provided by the federal government if that situation arises or gets worse. beenre already has extensive coordination between administration officials and state and local officials.
friday in atlanta, at the headquarters of the centers for disease control, there was a summit convened with administration officials and the top state and local health officials from across the country to discuss what our response to this should be. this is a pretty unique scenario. we have an opportunity to get ahead of this. the sense is not that we can prevent it entirely but we can begin to take steps right now before the disease rises in the united states. this can prevent it from having the worst possible impact on our public health. because of the refusal of congress to act, our ability to take those steps is quite limited right now. it's so limited we are actually having to take money away from the ebola fight to at least begin some of those activities to prepare for the onset of the mosquito season and the potential spread of the zika
virus but those resources are insufficient. we need more resources to make sure we are doing everything we can to protect pregnant women in the united states of america. that should not be a controversial notion. it's common sense. it will seem pretty common sense if and when we reach the scenario where there is genuine public panic about the spread of this disease. joy in suggesting that are going to look back on this time and deeply regret it. it's deeply regrettable right now that they are not taking the necessary steps to fight this disease. you talk about these limited funds, you have six under million dollars. ways is the lack of funding felt? what is not being done that could be done with more money question mark >> we talked about a couple of things.
localtypically jurisdictions responsible for fighting mosquitoes. in some states, they have set up mosquito control district where they can essentially tax local to reduce the mosquito population in those communities. the sense here is knowing that this is a disease carried by mosquitoes that we should ramp mosquito control efforts in communities across the country, particularly in the auth where there already is large mosquito population and one that will only grow as the calendar gets closer to the summer time. that's the first thing. therecond thing is that is a lot of scientific work that needs to be done to develop diagnostics and vaccines. a lot of that work is done by the private sector. but they do so based on guarantees from the federal government. in order to get a serious
investment on the part of the private sector, the federal government needs to be able to make some commitment about a market existing for these products. that is why we believe that longer-term funding is critically important to make available right now so that the private sector has the confidence they can go out and invest in robust production of diagnostic tools and vaccines to fight zika. -- there isditional additional work that can be done primarily by state and local health authorities to try to prepare for the eventuality that zika rises in the united states. much of the preparatory activities are limited on till they get sufficient funding. last thing as laboratory capacity. if you have a situation where all bunch of people will start getting tested to see whether they have the virus, we need to make sure that we can then process those tests rapidly
enough to give people a quick response so they can begin to take the necessary precautions if they are determined to have the virus. 4 will not have any symptoms, and that could potentially put individuals in a situation where they unknowingly pass the disease on to their sexual partners, for example, so that is why providing information about whether or not they have zika virus is critical, and can beg that diagnostics promptly processed through the labs requires additional lab capacity. that is something that we would use funding from congress to do. >> so are you saying at this point that the government cannot do all it wants to do to try to prevent zika? because the money you are transferring over, for it to be
adequate, how much time with that be? what i am suggesting is the federal government needs additional resources to make sure the federal government and state and local governments are doing all that is necessary to protect the american people from the zika virus. as that, andle that is why we need congress to step up to the plate and not do something controversial, not do something that guarantees someone a political victory, that to do something that will make the american people safer from a virus that targets there newborn babies and the pregnant women. you are talking about a large amount of money. is that allowing the government to do what they need to do in that particular time, or if the federal government not able to do everything it wants to do? the state and local
behorities, it they will responsible for the mosquito control. they have to ramp up the infrastructure to make sure that it individuals show up sick that a zika diagnosis can be made quickly. >> the federal government would be doing more if it had more money from congress? absolutely, and we believe there is more the governments should be doing with the resources to protect the people from the zika virus, and right now, that is not happening, because congress has not done its job. >> you spoke very generally about what these rules what to do, so anytime you have a and you would call that a success, right?
is that what these rules intend? josh: it intends the closing of a loophole that will allow them to move their company operations overseas so they can avoid paying taxes first of all, the president thinks that is unfair. benefit notx available to middle-class families. it is only available to wealthy corporations and individuals, and the lost revenue essence you did with them not paying their fair share does have an impact thatvest in our schools, is the loss.
>> some trying to disqualify these, and we have already heard this kind of abrasive rhetoric now thingsicans, and might get more testing among the democrats. what are your thoughts on that? and we heard about a fundraiser, where he talked about trying to unify the party. , if theyou think democratic race is going to be getting contentious? fair to sayk it is that the democrats have a long way to go, before they reach the level of the tree all that has been reached between the republican candidates. to say nothing of the comments that they have made about each other's spouses.
but i think what is true is the , asident has his own point the leader of the democratic most well-regarded figure, not just the democratic party, but right now in american politics, and the president is going to play an important role in the general election. hearst and foremost, unifying democrats -- first and foremost, unifying democrats, and making a successor, about his and you have all heard from the president about the kind of argument he wants to make to make sure he is succeeded by some but he who shares his value s and can choose to the progress we have made, but there will be 20 of time for that conversation to come around and for the president to spend time at public making a forcible case in support of his successor. unity that many
have. josh: i think many people expect the democratic primary will be vigorous and the question is, are you focused on the issues that are most important to the american people? and i think it has been focused on a lot of things. on the democratic side, to the extent there have been different is between the candidates on policy, it has been focused, and i think that is a healthy thing. john? john: is the president getting at all and see? antsy? josh: the time will come when the public will be able to make will be- the president able to make a case, and when the time comes, i will be
confident that the president will join the debate with a lot of zest. john: with what was put out regarding the governors of , raising the minimum wage there to $15 an hour. i do not think the president had a dollar amount, but congressional democrats have talked about the figure. where does the president come down on this right now? where does he want to see the minimum wage? josh: the president has been clear that he supports the democratic efforts to raise the minimum wage. i think there are different proposals out there, and the president has said it is time to give hard-working americans a raise, and it is unfortunate that republicans have thus far , blocked thatdea legislation from moving forward. the president's thinking is actually pretty simple here, that the economy grows best when
it grows from the middle out, and if we are looking for ways, and this is what republicans say, that we should be looking for ways to give people the incentive to go back to work, ant better way to give them incentive to work hard than to give them a raise? right now, we are not rewarding or incentivizing hard work it right now, if you're raising a family of four and working full-time and getting a minimum wage, you are trying to raise your family below the poverty line. the president believes this is not good for the economy, and this is why the president is a strong advocate for raising the minimum wage. there are a handful of proposals that have been floated in congress that the people who are making minimum wage in america right now deserve a raise. "the washington post" had an op-ed about raising the minimum wage. does the white house disagree with that?
josh: i think many of the proposals that happen floated in congress have been phased i am not familiar with all of the inns and outs of the municipalities and the states who have raised the minimum wage. i know many of them have a phased increase in the minimum commonsensek for reasons, but, look. right now, you have republicans who are saying that people working minimum-wage do not deserve a raise pre-people working full-time making the minimum wage, raising a family of four, they deserve to be below the poverty line. it certainly seems inconsistent not only with common sense, but inconsistent with the kind of rhetoric we hear from republicans about having access to the american dream, so if we are going to continue to make our case to republicans -- this is another example, another example, where republicans in
congress have sided with corporate interests rather than hard-working americans. all right? >> thanks, josh. earlier about provisions to allow companies to ,o this and to give a chance ae rules are un-american, in way that specifically targets this deal and no others, it was that these new vehicles build a wall around the u.s., that there will be more in the future, so i went to give you a chance to respond. josh: on the last matter, with the facts of the matter, he is wrong. they can walk you through the what allows for significant investment on the part of foreign countries or foreign companies to make
investments in the united states. that is obviously a good thing. and the president has been a leading advocate of companies overseas doing that. you can hear more from him. talking about companies around the world to invest in the united states so they can get access to a vibrant economy. they can get access to the hardest working and most innovative workers in the world. access to a business climate where people who work hard and play by the rules have a pretty good shot at success, so that is entirely consistent with the case we have been making for some time. and it is difficult to have a for an american have a compensated
transaction to avoid paying taxes in america. and at this point, it is hard to have a lot of patience for the commentary on patriotism from a who is there to renounce his citizenship just to avoid paying his fair share, and i think that is part of why i think the american people are strongly on the side of the government in this case. look.orporate leaders -- i think most corporate leaders are trying to do the right thing for the country. most corporate leaders understand that a strong american economy is good for their business, and the concern that we have is with the leaders
of some corporations that are looking to take the best of without making a contribution to the success of our country, and that is wrong, and i think i am not going to have a lot of patience for discussion of patriotism from somebody who is advocating that kind of an approach to their company's accounting practices. >> instead of going through congress, such a major rule , the billions in the deal, and it is possible there ,ay be unintended consequences, --
refer you to the treasury department, because i think they have been quite thoughtful about this. it took the treasury department couple of years to announce these world changes. clearly, they have thought through the consequences for this specific action. it is also why there are specific revisions in here and go to great lengths to ensure that we are not overly does incentivizing for companies who are seeking to invest in the united states. our target here, what we are focused on, is american companies that are seeking to move overseas only on paper, just to avoid paying american taxes. that is the loophole we are focused on closing, and we do believe that these rules will be helpful in pursuing that goal but that definitively, with the practice,c corporate
we need congress to act, and more precisely, we need republicans in congress to stop working so hard to defend corporate interest that are seeking to shirk their basic .merican responsibility that is the real issue here, and, look. it is not democrats, at least not that i am aware of, that are opposed to closing the inversion loophole. in fact, there are a handful of republicans who are supportive of it, including at least one republican presidential candidate, and yet we cannot get republicans to understand the significance of their failure to act. >> facebook -- deciding to encrypt all messages sent over the messaging service going forward, and i am wondering thet the debate involving
fbi and terrorism and if there is a reaction to that. josh: not really. it does not change our policy or our view how the federal government and the technology industry can and should be able thatrk together to ensure robust -- or strong encryption withoutobustly deployed giving terrorists for child pornographers or other bad actors a safe haven in cyberspace. so it is complicated, and it is technical, in part because these policies and the technology itself is rapidly changing. to have ahat we need policy that can adapt along with it. that kind of innovation is healthy. we also want to make sure we do not put in place rules that are going to stifle that innovation. that innovation is critical to the success of our economy. thes also critical to
success of our encryption, but there are areas where we have been able to work together to get it done, including fighting things like child pornography, and, hopefully, when it comes to keeping the american people safe from terrorism, we should be able to work together to stop that, too. have coveredues this more closely than i have over the last months, but republicans repeatedly asked on capitol hill of the administration, why didn't you just spend some of the ebola money, and the answer from the administration is that we do not have it, it is not allocated, there is no way we can spend that money, so i guess the question is, what changed? josh: that has not been our approach, it since we started talking about this in early february, even when i discussed this shortly after the president
had the interview with cbs, we acknowledged there were some funds that could be made available to this fight from ebola-dedicated accounts that we could take away without completely undermining the fight against ebola. >> so, that was a political onision to keep the pressure 42 months, and now it is bad enough that you want to go ahead and take money? cannot wait any longer for congress to act. theimply asked congress for money, and they did not act, so we are doing the responsible thing, which is drawing on all available resources to meet this urgent need, but we are having to do that, too cap into in emergency fashion these funds because congress has not done it . >> this money was not available. josh: i cannot account for all of the conversations. what i can tell you is what i
have said publicly since the first monday in february is that there would be some funding that we could use for this effort from ebola but that that funding would be insufficient to meet the significant needs that we , and there is a risk associated with drawing that money away from the ebola fight, and that is why we are going to continue to urge congress as they passed the zika money that they continue to make available the funds so that we can repay the ebola accounts tot have been drawn down deal with this emergency situation. the truth is, this is way more complicated than it needed to be. we knew in february this is going to be a significant issue, and we put together a plan, and ford two months, congress has not done a thing. i do not know how they want to account for that.
maybe it is miscommunication, but i do not think that is going to fly when it comes to the american public wanting to know why their government did not take all the steps necessary to try to protect pregnant women and their newborn children of the zika virus. focused on this since january crude we put forth a specific plan and have been interacting with state and local officials so that they could take the fight to the zika virus. the president had a conversation with the governor when they were here in february about steps they can take in their states. money thatc, taking was available in some ebola accounts to try to shore up this investment, but all of this activity has taken place on a part of the administration and on the part of state and local officials, to be fair, but when it comes to congress, we have got nothing. ron? struck by the way you
are describing the situation we find ourselves angry and in the same sentence, talking about ebola. yes, pregnant women and their unborn fetuses a target, but you were trying to downplay how much of a threat to public health zika was. you were saying that symptoms were mild in many cases and that it was not like ebola, and now it sounds like your tone has changed a lot, and has this all just become a too partisan? at were discussing yesterday? so how serious is this whole outbreak to the general population, and are you being a bit partisan about this? josh: i think i have gone to great lengths to make certain this has no need to be partisan. in fact, i think i appointed out that this is most significant
for states that are represented in congress by republicans, and yet, the administration has made this a priority. the administration does not care any less by those who are represented in congress by republicans. we are generally concerned about the health of the american case, we aren this concerned about pregnant women and their newborn babies who are at the greatest risk of the zika virus. gone to great lengths to try to describe to people exactly what the risk is that is posed by the zika virus. it is different than the risk posed by ebola. there is no do nine that. we have gone to great lengths to make that clear. but the risk is quite significant. when you talk about the impact this virus has on pregnant women and their newborn babies, and our concern has been enhanced by the fact that we now know that sexual transmission of this commons actually more
than was previously thought. that is a reason for us to raise awareness among people who are not pregnant women about the risk they could pose and about the risk that the zika virus could close to them and their family. the maladies that the public health is fighting, why just the ebola account that zika money can be drawn from? as suddenlykes me we are talking about zika and ebola in the same sentence. in this case, this is illustrative thinking. here is what they both have in common. they are both reliant at least in part on a high functioning health care system to protect and we saw in the ebola situation that our public health system in the united states did
not perform quite as well as we thought. we certainly saw that the way a poor public health system in another country had a very real impact on the health in the united states, that the reason the ebola virus got so out of control in west africa is they did not have nearly the public health infrastructure in place to protect it, and to fight the disease, the united states military had to take it upon themselves to begin laying the groundwork for the international community to come in and essentially build that public infrastructure from the ground up, so there are significant resources that were dedicated after-the-fact by congress to fighting ebola, and this is the second thing they have in common. ebola did not get people's until, at least significantly in the united states -- it certainly did not get attention in congress, until somebody showed up at an american hospital with symptoms of the ebola virus.
that was a wake-up call for everybody, and we did see congress eventually mobilize to i think but many of you legitimately asked, why did it take so long, and why did it take an incident, some of the testing positive for ebola in the united days for congress to take any sort of action or for the government to take any sort of action to protect the is exactlyople? that the opportunity we have right now. we do know that this mosquito-borne virus is more to beent and is likely more prevalent in the united states as the weather warms up, and we know it poses significant risk to pregnant women and unborn children. trying to get're ahead of this. we are trying to learn the lessons from ebola. they are two different diseases. both caused by a virus, and they both have significant risks. do with ebola can
-- deal with zika better if we can do this. >> it was said something about how we can no longer tolerate isil having a headquarters in raka. is something going to be different now? ?s there some new strategy if, in fact, we cannot tolerate this existing headquarters there now? josh: i think the president is making the case that we continue to be very focused in trying to fornce the capacity fighting of the locals on the ground in syria who are focused sil, and there have been ample public discussions that the next big objective for that fighting force is to start moving towards raquaa, and they
have severed the supply line between there and most will, including on the outskirts, or at least in the same region, where they have made important isil out of kicked that town, and they are slowly capital,ng on isiil's and that is a priority. i certainly do not have any military training, but it is unwise to announce military operations before they have begun. i can tell you that there are many, many military air strikes that have been carried out by the united states and our coalition partners there. there is significant pressure being applied. there are already isil officials
there that have been killed by military airstrikes. there have also been strikes in qah,l including areas that have been destroyed, so we are already applying significant pressure against them in their capital, but our broader objective is to enhance the capacity of local fighters on the ground, to eventually drive isil out of that city. i do not have a timeline for you. >> even though the strategy is that momentg basis, was not typical, there is nothing dramatically different what is happening on the ground in the theater now? josh: well, i am not sure i
totally understand your question. works withnt military uniformed leaders around the world and they will have a formal dinner. isil was a prominent topic of discussion but far from the only one. there are a variety of challenges the military is confronting around the globe. those are the kind of challenges that were discussed at the meeting, including making sure our military leaders have the resources necessary to wage those fights. the president believes all that is important. we have talked about how we will continue to settle the grandpa isil, andagainst anyplace they decided want to try to establish a safe haven. that is why you have seen recent strikes in places like somalia and yemen and libya. it's against extremists threatening united states.
this is something the president has described as a top priority. chemistry before brussels and he continues to be today. april? reporter: i would ask two different questions. as you were offering these warnings about the summer, what is the worst-case scenario you are envisioning for the summer? josh: i don't have any specific projections offer. i think that we have seen as we anticipate the mosquito that carries this virus or is capable of carrying this virus is likely to be more widespread in the united states than previously thought. part of our concern about the zika virus is motivated by additional information that indicates the virus is more easily spread through sexual contact than was previously understood. we also are concerned that the zika virus appears to have a more potent impact on infant brain development and was
previously understood. there are a variety of reasons to be more concerned about this particular situation and we were early in the year. even than the administration was mindful of the risk of the virus posed and we saw to communicate publicly to the american people and accurate form exactly with the risk was. we also conveyed the congress specifically exactly what we believed was necessary to try to fight this virus and what steps we can take in advance of mosquito season to fight this disease, or to at least prepare for its arrival and spread in the united states. reporter: you were more ramped up now than you were a month or two ago. you had officials talking about -- sh: we have made steps to ramp up the preparations. a lot of that involves coordinating with state and local officials little bearing
the burden of this response. they are responsible for fighting mosquito populations and the strength and effectiveness of the public health infrastructure. all these things that take place of the state and local level. the u.s. government has a were -- has an important responsibility. again, this is the other reason that congress should be taking these requests seriously. it's not just the president of the united states making this request. he is making this request of a half of state and local officials were desperate to ensure they have the resources necessary to protect their citizens. reporter: what is the status of the vaccine? i remember the conversation from last time. the vaccines were coming, they were trials. is there a ramp-up in that as well? josh: i don't have an updated assessment on that for you. work has been continuing that i don't have an updated assessment.
i'm sure my colleagues at the center for disease control could update you. thatter: is there hope there will be some sort of hearing for the confirmation hearing? josh: absolutely. just yesterday a republican senator having met with judge garland joined the call suggesting the next step should be for the senate judiciary committee to hold hearings. we have a knowledge -- acknowledged next week judge garland will be meeting with a senators.republican i have a list right here somewhere. that includes just next week senators portman, he will be meeting with the chairman of the senate judiciary committee, chuck grassley abiola. -- of iowa. there is continued progress we are seeing
or at least for the judiciary committee has made clear they are prepared to accept the questionnaire from cheese jobs -- chief judge garland. it slowly but surely moving forward. we need to see republicans demonstrating clear commitment to actually doing their jobs and for filling their constitutional responsibilities. the idea that they will not do it justice because mitch mcconnell told him not to, that is not an explanation that will fly with voters. the republicans are saying no and the democrats are saying yes. johsh: i disagree. we will provide some probably available polling information conducted by the news organizations of your colleagues that sends a clear signal, even in purple states like the one representing -- represented by chairman grassley, that most
republicans agree with us. most republican voters agree that the senate should do their job even though it is a presidential election year and mitch mcconnell does not want them to. reporter: [indiscernible] [laughter] josh: gregory? reporter: i want to go back to pfizer. we had news today of a justice department on the halliburton baker hughes merger. there was a staples-office depot merger that is being challenged. can you connect the dots for us on this a little bit? antitrust policy, consumer protection policy, financial regulation. did you articulate what the president's attitude is towards his corporate mergers? to the economyue and the shareholders including more efficiencies, or does the president feel more skeptical
about how these mergers have on the taxpayers and the consumers? josh: it will be hard for me to be helpful in answering this question. we are just not going to weigh in on individual financial transactions. some of the transactions you are referring to are being considered a independent regulators, like the ftc or the department of justice. reporter: let me ask this at a level you can comment on. philosophically had assist -- how does this administer asian view corporate mergers? -- view corporate mergers? principlepresident's here is that the united states economy is the end the of the world. there are a variety of reasons for that. one of the reasons we have recovered so strongly from the 2008 wasdownturn in
the president was focused on a strategy that was growing the economy from the middle out. as long as we are focused on the best interest of middle-class families, we will be doing the right thing. not just for those families but for the country. president's the approach to always economic issues, why he is such a strong at the get of putting people back to work for building the infrastructure. it also lays the foundation for long-term strength of our economy. as for the president is a strong advocate. early childhood education, lowering the cost of college education, job training programs. it ensures american workers have the skills they need to compete in the 21st century global economy. that is where the president evaluates all of these economic circumstances and the way he evaluates economic policies. i guess it would be fair to say assessing the impact of those kind of transactions on middle-class families would be the way the president believes -- could recently to sermon
determine their impact on the u.s. economy. it seems on zika, that the white house position is the congress is forcing you into position we have to rob peter to pay paul. you talked a little bit about what to get to paul. can you talk about peter and the activities you can do? josh: i don't have a lot of granular detail on what sort of impact this will have. i will note this is not all of the available ebola money. we cannot take our eye off the ball when it comes to ebola. there are critical aspects of the fight against ebola that are ongoing. i think the other thing i should clarify, and this goes to ron's question from earlier, is that a and ourur ebola funding
efforts to fight evil that were focused on improving public health infrastructures. these are the kinds of -- the shorthand is ebola. we saw that weaknesses in the public health infrastructure risk ofted to a greater ebola. the fact is enhancing the public health infrastructures and united states and around the world can't have the effect of protecting the american people from a wide variety of diseases. reason thatthe more we cannot risk undermining those critically important investments simply because congress will not take the necessary steps, the commonsense steps, to prepare for a disease we know was on the way. somebody tof we get provide you with additional information on that. generally speaking best the position. kevin? reporter: merle heidegger --
merle haggard has passed away. your thoughts? he was allegedly country music in his passing is something people all across the country, even people who are only casual country music fans can appreciate. he was a legend in somebody who i think told the kinds of inries that whether you live an urban community or suburban community or a rule committee, i think you can relate to it. obviously his passing is a loss for country music. for all the people who got to know him personally. our thoughts and prayers are with his family and his friends at this time. reporter: appreciate that. we talked a bit about inversions today. i want to circle back to the fiduciary rule. i know sometimes inside the
beltway there was a technical aspect. if you would help me make sense we just wants to understand broadly what the president is aiming for here, and as a second part of that what about caveat -- buyer beware? how is the responsibility on the investors do -- investor to do the right thing? josh: the president believes financial advisors who are often people -- offering people retirement if i should do the right thing. they should put the interests of the customers ahead of their own financial interests. right now there are some financial advisors who don't abide by what is called the fiduciary standard. instead what they do is they actually tried to sell certain retirement products to their
customers, even if those products may not be exactly right for their customer given wealth.stomer's age or but by selling them those -- there are are incentives of the advisor gets access to. they get kickbacks from the company that created the estimate in the first place so they can be rewarded with a free cruise for themselves other family if they sell enough shares in this particular property. it is not fair for financial advisors to give advice to their customers that is not in the customer's best interest. that is not honest. that is not fair. all the president is saying is if you're doing it the right way, if you are abiding by the few judiciary standard -- fiduciary standard and making it clear that your customers interest comes first, the rule does not have any impact on you. this rule is aimed at those financial advisors that are not
disclosing the conflict of interest and are not appropriately looking out for the long-term financial interests of their customers who are looking to save money for retirement. the consequences are significant. at least one study indicates that american families lose $17 billion each year because of the advice they are getting was not in their own personal financial interests. access toent has made a secure retirement a top priority. we want to make sure every family, particularly middle-class families have access to secure retirement. and there are people that are going to financial advisors not acting in the best interests. they are causing the system delete $17 billion in losses every year. they may sit harder for people to retire securely. that is why the president or the department of labor has put forward a rule that is focused on the simple common sense
status of people trying to do the right thing by responsively saving for retirement. reporter: the second part of the question about buyer beware. do you have a responsibility as well? josh: that is part of this product -- problem. they do not have to disclose whether or not they were acting in the customer's best interests. this rule makes clear that if you offer people retirement advice, you have to put their financial interest of your customers first. reporter: last one for me. you may have seen this in the post about administrative leave and federal agencies. a pretty staggering number. to theed in this report scene of millions of dollars has been wasted by federal employees who have been placed on administrative leave and and received full pay, full benefits, only to come back to work and effectively getting sometimes years of paid leave.
what is your reaction to that? josh: i have not seen the full report. this administration has worked hard to root out waste, particularly when it comes to taxpayer dollars. that is something we take quite seriously. there are a variety of ways we approach this, including including most importantly taking a look at old regulations and figuring out what's of regulations do not make sense anymore. and by eliminating those old regulations that don't really apply we can do something quite significant assay taxpayer dollars. this is one example of the kind of steps we've taken to make sure this administration is a good steward of taxpayer dollars. nice to see you today. reporter: you have devoted considerable time and some today to the -- no connection to the the --on role in
[indiscernible] pfizer says they dropped a because of the rule. why should anybody believe that the time he had nothing to do with it? that the timing was not coincidental? josh: the thing people should understand is that this rule was under development in being considered by the treasury department for years before these two companies even announced they were considering a corporate inversion. this is a long thought out strategy here. reporter: the news of their pending inversion has been in the paper for days. it was obviously about the happen. speak toill let them the timing and when they were expecting to consummate the transaction. i certainly did not have any insight as to when they were planning to move forward for their transaction. i can tell you the focus of this rule is to close a loophole that yes, we knew the corporations were considering taking advantage of. there is no denying that.
that's the reason you close a loophole in the first full -- first place. i knew it was possible for them to avoid paying their fair share. we went out to close it. all right? andrew? reporter: as a present considering more troops to iraq? considering sending more troops to iraq? josh: in considering our counter-isil strategy, the instructions the president has given to his team i have talked about publicly quite a bit. it would be a very multifaceted strategy when it comes to degrading and ultimate destroying isil. includes airstrikes, building the capacity of fighting forces in iraq and syria to take the fight to isil on the ground in their own country. it includes cattery the efforts of isil to finance their
activities, our activities to include shutting down or countering the ability of isil to recruit fighters to their cause. workingrt to include collaboratively with countries around the world to prevent foreign fighters from fighting to iraq and syria in the first place. effort of those lines of we made important progress. we are seeing that isil is struggling to pay their fighters as much as they were before. we are seeing that the number of fighters in iraq and syria is lower than it has been before. we are seeing more voices, particularly in the muslim world speaking out against the hateful ideology of my soul. -- isil. the capacity for fighting forces is enhanced. we are seeing more airstrikes be taken against isil targets. having tosil is
withdraw from about 40% of the territory the previously held in iraq. there are tens of thousands of square kilometers inside of syria that used to control that they don't anymore. that's the result of the efforts we have undertaken. what the president has said is if there is an opportunity for us to devote more resources to a particular aspect of our strategy that would allow us to yield more success, then bringing those ideas. there are a couple of examples of that. one thing we have seen that has been useful is to put u.s. and coalition military personnel on the ground in iraq and syria to provide some advice and assistance to troops that are fighting heisel -- isil. the president recognized that was distributed -- that was a strategy that yielded some fruit in iraq. there are special operations forces in syria right now. a small number.
of u.s.ll number military personnel is working to offer advice and assistance to forces fighting heisel on the ground. -- isil on the ground. we are looking for ways to reinforce those aspects of our strategy that are yielding progress opportunity for us to make more progress by putting more resources behind one particular line of effort, the president was to see those recommendations. time, just because you raise the prospect, it's important for people to understand what we are not doing. we are not going to devote tens of thousands of u.s. military personnel on the ground in iraq and syria in a combat role. we tried that. it does not work. it doesn't address the situation on the ground or make americans safer. the president's strategy is one that is not going to solve this
it will make us safer. it will put additional pressure against isil and will lead to the kind of political outcome that we know would be required in syria for sure into a different extent to iraq to which we solve this problem. regard have weat asked for or received any updates on me troop levels or true posture since the beginning of the offensive? josh: the president has been reviewing progress on the ground. he meets with his broader national security team to talk about the progress of our counter-isil coalition. that includes a update about the resources that are being devoted to particular lines of effort. i don't have anything to tell you publicly at this point about any additional request that have been made by the department of
defense or any other members of his national security team. reporter: thanks, josh. with the president going back tomorrow to this school where he wants todd constitutional law, he is saying that senators are not doing their constitutional duty in blocking confirmation hearings. republicans have often criticize the president for exceeding his constitutional authority. i know that's not an unusual charge from congress. in a couple of big cases the courts have dealt him setbacks on that front, like immigration for example. say howdering can you the president's views have changed about the limits of presidential power since he was a possible instructor? josh: that's a good question. it's one i think we'll probably hard for me to answer. is one that is probably best for him to answer. i can tell you -- do it again?
we will see if he's available. i suppose there is an opportunity that the president will take some questions tomorrow. you can asking this question tomorrow. i think in general the president believes, and i think his record bears this out, that he has been rather conscientious about aggressively using executive authority within the confines of the law to make progress where congress has refused. when this than not question seven race in the onets the menstruation has -- the administration has won. numerous health care questions are examples where we've not seen the outcome we would like. president, while serving in office does
appreciate how important executive authority is. i think we have seen and our economy has benefited from some of the decisions that the president has made, or the administration is made using executive authority. the irony is that nobody questions and responsibility of the president of the united someone toominate fill a vacancy on the supreme court. it's written into the constitution. what we're seeing is republicans refusing to fulfill their basic responsibility that is written into the constitution. so in some ways i think you are asking both an interesting and legitimate question about the president's view of executive authority. i think to give you a full answer would work -- require more insight into the president's thinking and i think you get a thoughtful answer. when it comes to the basic congressional responsibility in
terms of considering supreme court nominees, that's a whole lot more straightforward. and something after the president will talk about more tomorrow. mark? reporter: when will we get president obama's tax returns? josh: i don't have any guidance about that right now. we will provide them before the filing deadline which it leaves april 18. -- which i believe is april 18. we will have them before then. it -- the schedule today is pretty light. anything you can tell us about? josh: the president has got some meetings with members of his team here. it is a little quieter than usual as he prepares for a three-day trip at the end of this week. the president is working a little later yesterday when he was hosting the combatant commanders at the white house.
nothing specific and tell you about. reporter: can you confirm he is doing a review tomorrow? josh: while in chicago he will take an interview with chris wallace for fox news sunday. is the first time he is a peer in the program as president of the united states. he has sent at least one other interview with esther wallace since -- mr. wallace since becoming president. this will be the first time he has been on the program exclusively as a guest as president of the united states. reporter: you're thinking of doing it? josh: it's an opportunity for mr.president -- obviously wallace is traveling to chicago and will interview the president at the university of chicago law school. i think part of our expectations in terms of preparing the president for the interview is that he will want to talk about the supreme court nomination he has put forward.
something mr.sly wallace has questioned his guests about quite frequently over the last several weeks. i would anticipate that will be true this week's program as well. while that will obviously be an important part of the interview i also expect mr. wallace will ask about some other things too. the president is looking forward to it. i think any time the president is doing interview with a television program he has not done an interview with for a while, it's an opportunity to reach a new audience. or an audience that they not effort from the -- may not effort for the president directly in a while. it's a good opportunity to make a strong case that the u.s. congress should fulfill the constitutional responsibility to confirm a nominee. reporter: the audience you we are reaching by going on fox? josh: as mr. wallace would point out to you, his audience is not
just fox news viewers but also fox broadcast viewers. up-to-date. maybe kevin can kill you in on the latest readings. [laughter] mr. wallace has a well-established revocation for asking tough questions. i do think anything that anybody is expecting a softball interview. i also think that there are important issues to talk about. the president is looking forward to a thoughtful and serious conversation about important issues. at least for the context in which this interview is taken place. the supreme court made it to the top of the list. reporter: [indiscernible]
not that i'm aware of. angst, everybody. -- thanks, everybody. >> josh earnest talking about the president's trip to chicago tomorrow. he will be speaking to law students at the university of chicago, making the case for why the senate should consider the nomination of merrick garland to the supreme court. you that coming up at 4:00 eastern this afternoon, the secretary general of nato will have a preview of the alliance's summit in poland. he will be speaking at the atlantic council at 4:00. more road to the white house c-spane coming up on the networks. hillary clinton is speaking at carnegie mellon university in pittsburgh coming up ahead of the pennsylvania primary. that's hillary clinton today at 6:00 over on c-span3.
at 7:00 eastern, ohio governor john kasich came in third last night in the wisconsin primary. he's back home in ohio to deliver his 2016 state of the state address from marietta in the southeast corner of ohio. west virginia has their presidential primary on may 10. 7:00, donald trump campaigning in new york ahead of the primary. bethpage onnight in long island. campaign 2016, c-span takes you on the road to the white house as we follow the candidates on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. >> with ted cruz winning the
what a great crowd. i want to thank our lieutenant governor for being here. thanks to all of you for coming out. i want to thank all of you here and all of you at home for showing what wisconsin nice means. wisconsin nice means we are nice, but we are not pushovers. what common sense conservative reforms mean and we understand what it means to have principled, conservative leadership. we've done it here in the state of wisconsin. understand that we don't need leaders who talk about how bad things are. tonight, we are celebrating a tremendous victory for ted cruz, the next president of the united states.
is someone who has stood up and fought the big government special interests in washington dc. when we elect him as our next president, he's going to do the same thing for all the people of this great country. want to thank all of you here and tell the rest of this country that just as wisconsin has been a leader in the past, we are proud to be a leader again, showing a turning point in this election. is bigger than just wisconsin. this is the night where we can look back and say that was the time that turned this tied this election to bring ted cruz home to be the nominee of this party.
sen. cruz: god bless the great state of wisconsin. what an incredible victory tonight and thank you for your tremendous governor, governor scott walker who is a principled and passionate leader. tonight is a turning point. it is a rallying cry. it is a cry from the hard-working men and women of wisconsin to the people in america. we have a choice. a real choice. the national political terrain began to change two weeks ago. in the state of utah, we won 69% of the vote.
a landslide election. [applause] sen. cruz: winning every single delegate in the state. then, just three days ago in colorado, to congressional districts voted. once again, they elected six delegates and of those six delegates, we won all six. [applause] sen. cruz: and then, two days ago in north dakota we had another tremendous win. they elected their delegates. of the delegates who specified their support, 18 are supporting our campaign. one is supporting donald trump. [applause]
sen. cruz: 18-1, i will take that ratio any day of the week. [cheers and applause] sen. cruz: and now tonight, here in wisconsin, a state that just three weeks ago the media had said wisconsin was a perfect state for donald trump. [booing] sen. cruz: but the men and women of wisconsin worked tirelessly to make sure tonight was a victory for every person in america. [applause] [chanting "cruz!] senator cruz: four very different states. utah, colorado, north dakota,
wisconsin. four victories. [applause] sen. cruz: so just how significant is tonight? well, just today, our campaign has raised over $2 million. [cheers and applause] sen. cruz: people all over the country going to ted cruz.org. ted cruz.org. ted cruz.org. contributing $10 or $25 or $50. we have had over 1.3 million contributions. [applause] sen. cruz: in the last two weeks, and in the coming days when colorado and wyoming finished voting, we're likely to
gain over 100 delegates on donald trump. [applause] sen. cruz: and, as a result of tonight, as a result of the people of wisconsin defying the media, defying the pundits, i am more and more convinced that our campaign is going to learn the -- to earn 137 delegates needed to win the nomination up. [cheers and applause] sen. cruz: either before cleveland or at the convention in cleveland, together we will wind the majority of the delegates and together we will beat hillary clinton in november.
[applause] sen. cruz: tonight was a bad night for hillary clinton. it was a bad night in the democratic primary and it was in even worse night for her and the republican primary. [cheers and applause] sen. cruz: we are winning because we are uniting the republican party. of these 17 candidates who started this race, a terrific, talented, dynamic field. five have now and doors to this campaign. -- endorsed this campaign. rick perry and lindsey graham and jeb bush and carly fiorina. and wisconsin's own governor
scott walker. [cheers and applause] sen. cruz: when you toss and senator mike lee and mark levin, we have got the full spectrum of the republican party coming together and uniting behind this campaign. [applause] sen. cruz: in 1960, accepting the democratic party nomination, john f. kennedy observed, "i think the american people deserve more from us then cries of indignation and attacks. the times are too great, the
challenge to urgent, and the stakes too high to permit the customary passion of political debate. we are not here to curse the darkness but to light the candle that can guide us to see through that darkness to a safe and sane future." as winston churchill said on taking office, "if we open a portal between the present and the past, we shall be in danger of losing the future." the same is true today. tonight, wisconsin has lit to a candle guiding the way forward. tonight, we once again have hope for the future. [applause]
sen. cruz: tonight is about unity and tonight is about hope. young people in america once again have hope that we will bring jobs back to america. [applause] sen. cruz: by repealing obamacare. passing a -- [applause] senator cruz: sen. cruz: reigning in the federal regulators that are killing small businesses, and passing a flat tax, we will unleash incredible financial security. our border will finally be made secure and sanctuary cities will end.
[applause] sen. cruz: truck drivers and mechanics and plumbers and union members, steelworkers, men and women with calluses on their hands will once again see wages rising. opportunity. working moms. working moms struggling to make ends meet will see take-home pay rising. the cost of living falling. and common core ending. [applause] catholic schools and jewish day
schools, brigham young and the little sisters of the poor will see a supreme court that protects their religious liberties. [cheers and applause] [crowd chanting "cruz!"] sen. cruz: the fundamental freedom of every one of us to live according to our faith and our conscience will see a second amendment right to keep and bear arms. [cheers and applause] sen. cruz: and our fundamental right to protect our families and our homes and our children. [applause] sen. cruz: we will see a president who stands with his --
who stands with israel. clearly and unapologetically. [applause] sen. cruz: instead of negotiating with terrorists, we will rip two strands this catastrophic iranian nuclear deal. [applause] sen. cruz: we will defeat radical islamic terrorism and we will actually destroy it isis. [cheers and applause] sen. cruz: we will have a president who keeps us all safe. [applause]
sen. cruz: to the soldiers, the marines, the first responders who risk their lives every day to keep us safe, we will have a commander-in-chief who has your back. [applause] senator cruz: jobs, freedom, and security. that is what this next election is all about. in 1980, milton and rose friedman wrote open quote -- wrote "freedom to choose." too much government can stifle opportunity.
what if we get washington out of the way, then there is no limit to what we cannot accomplish will stop [applause] -- then there is no limit to what we can accomplish. [applause] sen. cruz: it is what allowed my dad to escape cuba and come to america with nothing. washing dishes, taking $.50 per day to wash dishes and today to be a pastor traveling the country. [applause] sen. cruz: it is what allowed my irish italian mother to become the first and her family to go to college. to smash glass ceilings by becoming a pioneering computer programmer. [applause]
sen. cruz: she is a loving mom and every day she is teaching our daughters that strong women cannot accomplish anything in the united states. [applause] sen. cruz: that is america. it is what we are fighting for. our children. our future. and, wisconsin has made clear we are free to choose. [applause]
for centuries, for centuries america has been a shining city on a hill. a begin of liberty to the world and we can and will be wonderful. so i ask you at home to join us as we continue to unite republicans in the independents and libertarians and reagan democrats and americans who care about our future who won jobs, freedom, and security. just as we have done in wisconsin, we are doing all across this country. [applause] sen. cruz: and governor, let me
tell you, i look forward to coming back to the state of wisconsin this fall. [applause] sen. cruz: ended november, for the first time since 1984, painting the badger state bright republican red. [cheers and applause] sen. cruz: -- [crowd chanting "cruz!"] sen. cruz: so let me just say, hillary get ready. here we come. god bless you!
about 5000there were people who participated in the last mile mean caucus -- last wyoming caucus. it looks like they are all here tonight. [applause] thank you very much for coming out and let me remind everybody that we have a really important caucus here on saturday. doors open at 9 a.m.. let's be there. let's win. [applause] i don't know if the audience here knows it. here, but itny tvs has been projected by all the networks that we won in wisconsin. [applause]
[chanting "bernie, bernie"] wordanders: let me say a -- maybe two words, i don't know, about what momentum is all about. momentum is starting this campaign 11 months ago and the media determining that we were a fringe candidacy. campaignis starting a 60 270 points behind secretary clinton. lasttum is within the
couple of weeks, to have been national polls that have had a one point up or one point down. [applause] that when you look at national polls, yet when you look at statewide polls, we are defeating donald trump by very significant margins. [applause] and in almost every instance in national polls and state polls, our margin over trump is wider than is secretary clinton. [applause] with a victory in wisconsin
tonight, and let me take this opportunity to thank the people of wisconsin for their strong support. [applause] tonight, wetory have 17 out of eight of the last caucuses. [applause] and we have one almost all of them with overwhelming landslide numbers. what momentum is about, and a time in contemporary politics when every major candidate has a super pac, we have said no to super pac's, said no to the
billionaire for fundings. [applause] and what we have done is in an unprecedented manner in history we have up until this point in the campaign received over 6 million individual campaign contributions. [applause] sen. sanders: anyone here know what the average contribution is? that is exactly right. smart crowd. $27. to paraphrase abraham lincoln at gettysburg, "this is a campaign of the people, by the people,
and for the people." [applause] sen. sanders: we have decided that we do not represent the billionaire class. we do not represent wall street or the drug companies or the fossil fuel industry. [applause] sen. sanders: and we do not want their money. [applause] what momentum is about is my belief that if we wake up the american people and if working people and middle-class people and citizens and young people begin to stand up, fight back,
and come out to vote in large numbers there is nothing that we cannot accomplish. and what's we have been seeing a throughout his campaign is extraordinary voter turnouts in state after state after state. [applause] sen. sanders: in diameter particularly grateful -- and please, at a time when many of the pundits said, you know, though jean people, they do not want to get involved in politics. they are not really concerned
about the major issues facing our country. they are too busy with their video games or whatever. well, you know what is happening? all over this country, young people are standing up and saying, you know what? we want to help determine the future of this country which we love. [applause] sen. sanders: what momentum is about is all across this country, the american people are looking around them. and they understand that real change in our country's history, whether it is the trade union movement, whether it is the civil rights movement, whether it is the women's movement, the gay rights movement, they understand that real change
never, ever, takes place from the top on down. it always takes place from the bottom on up! [applause] sen. sanders: in today -- today, coast-to-coast, i have been in california, maine, and a whole lot states in between. what people are saying is why is it that in america we have grotesque levels of income and wealth inequality? why is that that the top 1/10 of 1% now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%? why is it that for the last 30 years the great middle class of this country has been shrinking and almost all due income and wealth is going to the top 1%?
the american people are asking, why is it that women go to work tomorrow and they are earning $.79 on the dollar compared to men? [applause] sen. sanders: people are asking, how does it happen that the united states of america -- our great nation -- is the only major country on earth not to guarantee paid family and medical leave? [applause] sen. sanders: there are women giving birth in wyoming and wisconsin and vermont today but they are going to have to go back to work in two or three week because they do not have the income to take your of their
families. which is why, together, we are going to pass three months paid family and medical leave. [applause] [applause] sen. sanders: and the american people, from coast-two-coast are saying, yes, the affordable care act has done a lot of great things. thank you president obama for your leadership. but, in terms of health care there is much, much more that has to be done. [applause] sen. sanders: the american people are asking, why does it happen that every other major country on earth -- united kingdom, france, germany,
holland, scandinavia, canada -- every other major country on earth guarantees health care to all of their people as a right except the united states. together we are going to change that international conundrum. [cheers and applause] sen. sanders: and the american people are asking -- and young people are asking -- why is it that when we are living in an increasingly competitive global economy, why is it that kids are graduating college 30,000, 50,000, $70,000 in debt? [applause] sen. sanders: and in some cases, in some cases spending decades having to pay off that debt? we should be rewarding people
who get the education they need. not punishing them. [applause] sen. sanders: and the american people are asking, how does it happen when the scientists all over our country who studied climate change and scientists all over the world are in virtual unanimous agreement, that climate change israel. that it is caused by human -- that climate change is real. that it is caused by human activity. that it is already causing devastating problems in our country and around the world. how do we have a republican party that refuses to even a knowledge the reality of climate
change? [applause] sen. sanders: and the american people are asking, how does it happen that we can spend trillions of dollars fighting a war in iraq that we never should have gotten in in the first place? [cheers and applause] sen. sanders: but in flint, michigan, and in cities all over this country -- our inner cities are crumbling. unemployment is off the charts. health care system, not acceptable.
kids dropping out of high school. two, too many being arrested and sent to jail. how come we can rebuild the infrastructure of iraq and afghanistan but we cannot rebuild our own crumbling infrastructure? [cheers and applause] sen. sanders: and the american people are asking, as they assemble all over this country, why can we not end a campaign finance system which is corrupt and which is undermining american democracy? [cheers and applause] sen. sanders: democracy is not a complicated process.
it means that you have a vote in you have about he had you have a vote. into the majority wins. what democracy is not about is billionaires buying elections! [cheers and applause] sen. sanders: the american people are asking another very important and profound question. into that question is, how does it happen in the wealthiest nations in the history of the world that we have more people in jail they and any other country on earth? [applause] sen. sanders: and what the american people are saying is that now is the time to invest
in our younger people in terms of jobs and education. not jails and incarceration. [applause] sen. sanders: in some of you have recently heard about the discovery and revelations about the tax-dodging that is taking place in panama which is one of the reasons that i oppose the free trade agreement with panama. [applause] sen. sanders: and one of the reasons i was on the floor of the senate talking exactly about what i feared happened, and that is wealthy people and large corporations figuring out ways to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. [applause] sen. sanders: and what the
american people are asking is, at the time of massive income and wealth inequality, how does it happen that you have large profitable multi-national corporations who in a given year pay zero, not a penny, and federal income taxes? [booing] sen. sanders: now change, real change, comes about whether it is fighting racism, worker exploitation, sexism, homophobia -- real change comes about when people stand up and they look around them and they say, you know what? the status quo is not working. we can do better. [applause]
sen. sanders: and let me give you -- i can't give you many examples -- but let me give you the most contemporary example of what happens when people stand up and fight back. if we were here in this beautiful auditorium five years ago, not a long time from a historical perspective and somebody were to jump up and say, you know, i think a $7.25 federal minimum wage is a starvation wage and it has got to be raised to $15 an hour. now, if somebody stood up five years ago and said that the person next to them would've said, you are nuts. $13 an hour? you want to more than double the minimum wage. you are crazy. maybe, maybe we could get up to
eight dollars or nine dollars an hour but $15 an hour? you are dreaming too big. sound familiar? you are unrealistic. it cannot he done. think small. but then what happened is fast food workers, people working at mcdonald's, people working at burger king, people working at wendy's, they went out on strike. and i was very proud to join with those workers in washington. [cheers and applause] sen. sanders: and they went out and they said, fellow americans, we cannot live on $7.20 an hour. we cannot live on a dollars and are. you've got to raise the minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour. and they fought and they fought.
and suddenly, a few years ago, seattle, washington -- $15 an hour. [applause] sen. sanders: los angeles, san francisco -- $15 an hour! [applause] sen. sanders: oregon, $15 an hour. and in the last several weeks in both california and new york, governor signed legislation for $15 an hour. [applause] sen. sanders: what is my point? my point is that yes, we can change the status quo when we think big and when we have a vision. [cheers and applause] sen. sanders: im not naive. i know the power of wall street
and their endless supplies of money. i know that corporate america has shut down. if they can make another five dollars in profit. i know that billionaires are funding candidates whose job it is to represent the wealthy and the powerful. i know about the corporate media that will give us all of the information we need except what is most important for working families. [cheers and applause] sen. sanders: i know about all of that at this is what i also know. i know that's what history about is that when people stand up and they say, the status quo is not acceptable, we will not have children working in factories.
we will not have working people in a job that has no power over those jobs. we will not continue to have segregation or racism or bigotry. we will not have women unable to vote or go to the schools they want or do the work they want. we will pass gay marriage and 50 states. [applause] sen. sanders: so that is what i have learned from history, is that when we are prepared to think big, when we are prepared to take on the greed and recklessness of wall street, when we stand together and we do not allow the trumps of the world to divide us up, by whether we're were born in america or born abroad, whether
we are muslim or jewish or christian -- [applause] sen. sanders: it when we stand together whether we gay or straight male or female -- yes, we can create a government that represents all of us and not just a handful of wealthy campaign contributors. [applause] sen. sanders: now, this campaign has one won 7 out of the last caucuses and primaries. with your help, we are going to win on wednesday in wyoming.
then we're headed to new yor new york, i spent the first 13 years of my life in brooklyn, new york. secret.ase keep this a do not tell the secretary, she's getting nervous. excellentyou got an and a lotwin new york of the delegates met state. -- delegates in that state. to head aftering some other states on the west
coast. and we have an excellent chance to win in oregon and to win in california. [applause] and i think that a lot of these superdelegates are going to be looking around them. and they are going to be saying -- which candidate has the momentum? which candidate is bringing out huge numbers of people and -- whichhuge candidates can bring out large numbers of people. [laughter] i can't use the word huge anymore. win in november if there is a large voter turnout. that's what always happens. democrats and progressives win
when there is a large voter turnout. republicans when when people are demoralized. this campaign is giving energy and enthusiasm to millions of americans. [cheers and applause] [chanting "bernie"] people of this country are tired of establishment politics and establishment economics. i think the people of this country are ready for a political revolution. [applause]
if you ignore what you hear on corporate media, the facts are clear. we have a path towards victory. a path towards the white house. [cheers and applause] and wyoming can give us analysts -- enormous boost forward. if we win here on saturday? [cheers and applause] when the voter turnout is high. we do poorly when the voter turnout is low. recordrday we saw a breaking turnout in the caucus. [cheers and applause] have wyoming democrats
making it clear that this great state is part of a political revolution. thank you all very much. [cheers and applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] ♪
political reporting that the senate judiciary committee chairman will have breakfast next tuesday with the president's nominee to the supreme court. he has previously said that he would not hold confirmation for the nominee. senator grassley says the senate should not confirm anyone president obama nominates to the high court that he scheduled nonetheless to meet with the nominee for breakfast.
easternernoon at 4 p.m. , the secretary general of nato gives a preview of the polish alliance the summer. speaking at the atlantic council at 4 p.m. eastern, live at 7 p.m. john kasich is running for president and his today back home in ohio to deliver his 2016 state of the state address. marietta, by the way, is across the ohio river from west virginia. they have their presidential primary scheduled for may 10. on c-span, the supreme court cases that shaped our history come to life with "landmark- with cases." our 12 part series explores real-life stories and constitutional dramas behind significantmost decisions in american history.
>> this is the story of power in a time of war. it was about the conditions under which presidents can do things that may not be in the constitution. and it limits the congress and the courts'place on it. >> the case has been come to be accepted by the culture. how many can we say about that? isolated the u.s. as only one of four nations across the globe. settled theas not issue. >> and tonight we will look at the case that strengthened the 14th amendment against search and seizures, making it illegal for evidence to be used without a warrant in court. that will be tonight on c-span and c-span.org. navy admiral andrew lewis
said today that coalition forces are gaining momentum and territory in the battle against isis. he briefed reporters this morning. this is 45 minutes. >> good morning, everyone. we are pleased to welcome to the lewis,rear admiral andy the vice director for operations. he is here to give us our latest campaign of the -- update. do us a favor and identify yourself when you ask a question for the benefit of admiral lewis. we will take as many questions as we can. podium further do, the is years. goodadmiral lewis: morning. as a vice andctor for the operations
staff, we are responsible for overseeing the daily operations around the world. today, i will brief you on the progress our coalition has made in the counter isil campaign, particularly on iraq and syria. as stated by the chairman and secretary, the coalition fighting isil has momentum. broadly, the coalition has degraded their ability to move freely on the battlefield and has regained significant territory in iraq and syria and has degraded their leadership and resources. there are more than 60 nations participating in the coalition, and more than 20 of our partners contribute combat troops and equipment. although there is a long road ahead, there has been to get progress. security forces have begun shaping in isolation operation for retaking muzzle. and coalition partners supporting them with air power
and other capabilities. we have seen steady progress as the iss continues to recapture territory. inse are the final nodes isil's communication networks, both in iraq and syria and are important steppingstones. their capabilities continue to grow and their newly trained troops are having a positive impact. in syria, coalition partners seized should dotty and close off nearly 6000 square kilometers of isil held territory. they have cut off key lines of medication between iraq and syria. we have continued to target senior isil leadership and our successes are degrading their ability to govern and control their territories. coalition air power has had a significant impact on iraq and syria, and as our intelligence continues to improve, so does
our ability to target isil leadership and other priority target. this weakens isil and makes them desperate. in fact, we assess the attacks in paris and brussels are not signs of their strength, but reflections of their distorted attempts to maintain the ability to recruit in the face of their failures on the battlefield. we do not assess that there is a direct correlation, but they do demonstrate the length to which isil will go to survive as an organization. focusedured, we remain across the globe to destroy isil and to deny them safe haven from which they can operate. --re is no cool deep enough no hole deep enough in which they can hide. time is not on their side. finally, i would like to say that i come to work each day, honored to wear this uniform and serve as a sailor, airman,
murray's serve -- and marines serve all over the globe. the sacrifices these young americans make are significant, but they are willing to do so with humility and dignity. they execute the mission precisely and violently when necessary, always maintaining their values. thank you for being here and for helping tell the story to the american public. with that said, i will take any questions you may have. yes? >> admiral, thank you for doing this. mapquick question on your and then a broad question. we have heard varying percentages over time, can you say based on the isil area influenced map, what percentage of territory has isis lost or gained in iraq or syria, over the past year or so? we have heard varying numbers, so i am wondering if you can clear that up.
and my broader question is about activities ining syria. can you give us a picture of what you see from russia? we know that some fighters have left, but are the bombing activities by russia starting to make it more difficult for the u.s. to conduct operations there, since there is a call for greater complexion -- there is a cause of greater complexion and what have you seen russia do over the last couple of weeks? rear adm. lewis: in regard to mentionedregained, i the momentum with the coalition, it has shifted. a year ago, a two months ago -- 18 months ago, the area that they controlled was much longer.
i would not come to a percentage for decrease, but it is significant. it is significant. when you're talking about 6000 square kilometers, that is a lot of space regained by coalition forces fighting in syria. and those fighting in iraq. as -- and they are retaking isil territory. theirave restricted movement and their lines of medication between iraq and syria, but also within iraq and within syria. they cannot move freely around the battlefield. so not really a percentage, but it is significantly reduced. if you look at the comparison side-by-side, is significant. with regards to the russians, what we are seeing is they have a number of fighters and other
capabilities that have gone back to russia and there are still some there and they are still operating. the cease-fire operations are ongoing and there are still hiccups that are happening from day to day. we are not seeing the move further east at present. seeing that as being a problem to our operation. areationally, where they fighting against isil, where they have an effect against isil, we like that. outside of that operation and what their intent is, i am not qualified to address that. >> you said 6000 square kilometers? is that the number of coal -- commoners in syria -- kilometers
in syria that isis has lost? rear admiral lewis: the coalition forces have regained. yes, sir? >> you talked about 20 countries regaining equipment -- providing equipment, but none of those countries are sunni countries. secretary carter said he was confident that they -- the uae would provide special forces for this fight. that has not happened yet. it also as i understand, no trainers from the sunni countries are in iraq. they are from european countries , the u.s., canada, australia, so are you still hopeful that these countries will send a special forces and why have you not been able to attract any trainers from any of these sunni countries? dialogueral lewis: the
is ongoing with our leadership and the leadership of sunni countries to try to get those trainers to have special operators. but at my level, what i have been involved with, and what that -- that dialogue continues, but i cannot speak to where it is as far as where we are. >> you don't have one trainer from a sunni country? norway, them from finland, australia, new zealand and not one from an arab speaking country? rear admiral lewis: i was a say that my understanding in that dialogue that is ongoing with the leadership, with our leadership, i am not privy to
those discussions. i will leave it at that. >> one more question. there was a strike in in live. it is rare for you to be striking that far west. rear adm. lewis: i am not going to talk about that at this moment. >> from fox news. general both tell testified that there was no plan to retake rocca, is that still the case and if so, why not? you can you talk about the sign on -- sinai, there are reports that there are plans underfoot to remove u.s. forces because of concerns about isis in that area and the ability to protect those troops, where does that stand? are you planning on pulling u.s. troops out of the sinai? rear adm. lewis: in regard to counterst question, the
isil campaign in iraq and syria, if you look at it less as a sequential campaign and more of a simultaneous campaign, the iraqi and coalition forces on the ground are making the determination on what they are going to take in accordance with the ebb and flow of activity on the ground and what we are supporting and training forces to help support, in support of their overall campaign abducted. -- objectives. we have the flexibility to shift focus. that is as directed, by the forces who are doing the fighting. so it may be that iraq becomes but in that
uncertainty that we have against the enemy, or the coalition has against the enemy, makes it a more advantageous situation for us on the ground. are -- nothing has changed in our overall strategy of support of the coalition in the fight and we are supporting their military plan to execute. >> isn't it strange that a year conflict, into this that there is still no plan to retake the capital of the so-called islamic state? rear admiral lewis: i do not think -- i am not really qualified to answer that question, frankly. in regard to your sinai question, that operationally, we have people there that are committed to the mission. and my focus is making sure that
they have the force protection measures in place. tohave increased those ensure their maximum safety. >> are there plans to pull them out? rear admiral lewis: those notussions are happening, the plans whether to pull them out or not, but what that looks like within the government, within the u.s. government and governments of israel and egypt. those discussions happen at the very highest levels. outpoststold that two have been closed, is that accurate? rear admiral lewis: no sir, they have not been closed. >> on the russian president there, you are saying that there andstill pickups -- hiccups
the russians have withdrawn some assets. i'm wondering if you would characterize this as that? the russians still seem to have a military presence there. rear admiral lewis: operationally, there is a difference, because their focus of effort is very refined and as far as their intent, you would have to ask the president of russia that. >> you should arrange that. on another topic, it is in the news, the seth curry ends saying thatuth koreans saying north korea, they believe they have a deployable, nuclear weapon. that, the u.s. view on but operationally, how does it change in terms of protecting allies? is ann the news, this
operational question. [indiscernible] rear admiral lewis: yes, ma'am? >> two quick questions. the first is on the border with turkey. with theeing done coalition to secure the border to stop any islamic state gains? my second question is around ramadi. there has been a lot of counting of success with the retaking of ramadi, but i have noticed that there have been losses as well. territory?ding or are they removing fighters from the battlefield, or just pushing them outside of major cities? rear admiral lewis: in the area of ramadi, it is not trading territory. it is clearing operations and
securing and putting government into place. that is a dangerous situation. but one in which iraqi security forces and police forces are andng in and securing, moving in the right direction. in regards to the border with turkey and syria, the broader coalition -- you know, it is a very complicated situation on the ground with various turksions, including the and our nato allies. is, you know, the big take away operationally is that we are making, the coalition is making gains in securing the border because one of the things we are concerned about is the foreign fighter flow into syria through that
area. so, that has a lot of impact on it, but there are gains being made. >> let me follow up. when thehere gains islamic state is also making gains? rear admiral lewis: i think that the gains by the coalition is more than what the islamic state has. >> could you describe the range marines there are involved in? are they getting outside the base as iraqi forces keep pushing west? into a follow-up, can you describe the range of operations against the islamic state in afghanistan beyond, including the airstrikes, but are there additional rules -- roles for u.s. ground forces to fight islamic state in afghanistan?
rear admiral lewis: i will take your second question first. well, because i have short-term memory loss. but in afghanistan, just a couple of days ago, afghanistan , theye command structure had specific numbers that they came out with. , i will not name numbers, but there have been counterterrorism strikes in afghanistan. and i know that that is of affairs in the public organization here at the secretary of defense and the secretary defense is working to be as forthcoming as possible with information. obviously, we are concerned with putting our forces at risk by sharing too much. in regards to your other
question, it goes by another name which i cannot pronounce right now. the chairman addressed this very distinctive -- consistently a week ago. their mission is to provide fires in support of iraqi forces, just like we do with airplanes. surface fire by air. the same concept, very accurate, and we have put force protection at the areaplace and a strengthened those attacks, even since the several weeks ago. news, can you explain more what you mean about the russian efforts being more
defined recently? i think that there were reports yesterday that the russians had it launched a fierce assault against an area just south of aleppo, so that does not necessarily seem like it is isis. are you seeing that they are supporting the government assault on civilians, on opposition forces, and whatnot? and one other question -- rear admiral lewis: i will answer that. kids, so i have four have always told my kids that actions speak louder than words. for me to try to figure out, or any of us try to figure out, ith the russians intent is, -- what i am referring to as far as their actions and what we see with their activity, it is confined to a geographical area that is not presenting a problem
with our fight. againstoalition's fight isil. >> are they actually striking isis? with a aleppo, what were they striking? rear admiral lewis: where the concentric circles are whether , isl is being struck by the russians, we will happily accept that. where it does not happen, it has not become a hindrance for our operations. -- i was justout struck by your answer, something that came from the daily round up of strikes. they struck a tactical unit near idlib and i am curious why you will not answer that? is there something that we should be talking about? rear admiral lewis: it is more
my comfort level in talking in detail about it. just from a standpoint of committing it to memory those details, not anything other than that. to be quite honest. you ifuld like to ask you can provide us with a clear picture about the size of the sdf democratic forces? can you confirm that the numbers 30,000-40,000? rear admiral lewis: i do not think that i can provide you a clear number. want even -- will theeven be as specific with sdf. i will back up and say the coalition and contributing members of the coalition, which is inclusive of several different groups, is i think
that range of numbers is close. disingenuousuld be for me to come down on the number. >> how much do you think the arab component is among the coalition forces? 20%? rear admiral lewis: i would be making something up if i answered. i just do not know. >> ok. you mentioned the significant loss that isl has faced lately. do you believe that the u.s. and the coalition have reached a turning point in the fight? rear admiral lewis: as i stated, i think that there is momentum and i would characterize it as significant momentum, but isil is still a dangerous enemy. of they are capable
irrational actions that present danger to a lot of innocent people. corner? we turned the i do not know if we have turned the corner per se, but i know that the trend is going in the right direction and we are committed, the coalition is accelerating that where we can. >> my last follow-up, the regime is pushing isl out of the suburbs of primera. they are also pushing isl from the northeastern side of syria. do you believe, as a military pointder, at a certain
one day that you'll need to ?ommunicate with it the regime rear admiral lewis: outside of me being a military officer, i would say that those discussions , those automatic discussions, political discussions are happening. they are being played out and alternatives being addressed, but this is not something i am involved with day to day, or even at all. -- from thek washington post, going back to those strikes that were not planned, can you speak to the u.s. ground force that targeted five al qaeda militants last night? rear admiral lewis: i will not accept -- a specifically t
that. i will say that the authority did it strike. aq have stayed in place. we continue to execute those strikes. >> and then the second follow-up , is unrelated. there has been reports coming out of theater about a lot more u.s. equipment flowing to syrian army divisions that we previously have not worked with in the past. now there are pickup trucks, mortars, have we changed how much we are equal being the syrian rebels we support -- equipping the syrian rebels we support? rear admiral lewis: no. whatever force we are supporting with equipment, there are stated
objectives on the ground in we provide -- and we provide that equipment to execute that mission. and then we evaluate. unfettered support of arms and supplies. >> but are we supplying people that we have not supplied in the past with that transactional agreement? rear admiral lewis: no, i don't, not as a group, we are not supplying people in different groups overall. it's no different than we were in the past. ok. >> i want to go back to firebase. has there been any similar bases put up in iraq or syria since that time?
or should the american public compoundst future will appear in iraq or syria? is, itmiral lewis: there is dependent upon what is happening on the ground and in the military campaign. as the iraqi security forces baselss toward isolating -- mosul, there may be which there is another base that has opened or reopened from years past that would be used in the same manner as a fire support base. >> has that happened yet? rear admiral lewis: not to my knowledge. >> there are reports emerging
that ali ambari was killed. military have any information whether he has been killed or struck? rear admiral lewis: i cannot confirm that. i can't confirm that. >> the last thing you talked , about territorial losses that isis has suffered, and you mentioned that isis routinely will strike almost immediately when it suffers losses. do you have a backlog or estimation in terms of strikes ,n the west, that they have because i think it will help understand how the territorial loss might not be mitigating the strikes on western targets, so do you guys have a sense of that?
rear admiral lewis: if we had a sense of that we would stop it. but we do not. there -- this is not a rational actor that behaves like we would like common, decent people would behave. diligent,stantly of theseor the threat kinds of attacks throughout the globe. do we have an estimate on what is cooking right now? i don't think we do. reporter: when isis is moved out of a territory, how much is that
limiting their ability to plot as long as they hold on to other places, in some cases were foreign fighters have come into train? >> i'm sorry. 10 you repeat the question? >> when isis loses places -- can you repeat the question? loses some places, as long as they hold other places, are they not able to continued to hold on, given that that is where most of the training of foreign fighters has gone through? >> integrates their ability to move freely on the battlefield degrades their ability to move freely on the battlefield. we are taking away their mobility and their agility in
the coalition. does it reduce it to zero? no, but it definitely degrades it. the want to just go back to issue -- the president said we should no longer tolerate e kinds of positioning enabled by in mosth headquarters all. ul -- announcer: we are going to break away from the last minute or two of this pentagon briefing to remarks from to nato secretary-general jens stoltenberg. the topic today, projecting stability in an age of instability.
this is live on c-span. to awill get back also couple of reasons why the interest might be a little higher than normal in nato on this trip. with theil was founded goal of constructing u.s. engagement in the world along with our closest friends and allies in europe and elsewhere. for that reason, we frequently host global leaders visiting in washington, d.c. nothing gives us more pleasure than hosting the secretary general of nato. the heart of our mission of working together to secure the future and it remains very much at the heart of america's role and purpose in the world. as president obama said today, nato is the linchpin of our cornerstone in the world. in july, we are delighted that
we will participate as one of nato's official public diplomacy partners at the warsaw summit. that ises at a moment testing nato's ability to respond to an unprecedented array of global challenges. i will list just a couple. number one, terror attacks in brussels and paris. number two, external challenges from a resurgent russia on , and theeastern front expanding instability from the middle east. nato, of course, we face as a u.s. presidential campaign issue and see it as a chance to engage the broader public in a reaffirmation of the alliance enduring values of specific contributions. secretary-general, you have been wise to stay clear of american domestic politics during your
visit here, but we don't need to do that as the atlantic council. we actually welcome donald trump's interventions on the question of nato, because it has once again focused the united importance of the alliance, the relevance of the alliance as it is today, and the specific undertakings of the alliance. i think it is the right time for this kind of public discussion and public debate. we also believe that beyond the grim recent events in europe, there is significant reason for hope. taking a step back, one sees how far europe has come from a painful history and centuries of inody conflict culminating the 20th century's two world wards before the foundation of the alliance. it is important to remember what a miracle today's alliance is.
europe has never enjoyed such a long and broad measure of peace, prosperity, and democracy as it does today. history's great accomplishments, made all the more remarkable by the post world war expansion of democratic ideals and institutions. it is an accomplishment, and one well worth defending. we do not stick our heads in the sand. politicalny leaders do not view nato as central to their strategies. much of the public does question nato's relevance in a changing world. arehat context, we fortunate to have a resourceful leader like jens stoltenberg at the head of nato. the secretary-general assumed his role faced with the daunting task of reorienting nato through a unique set of
chalnges. he has held leadership positions from minister of energy to minister of finance and twice served as minister -- prime minister of norway. he was instrumental in developing norway's defense policy to tackle emerging threats. he also saw the country through one of the most difficult times in its modern history, the in theattacks witnessed summer of 2011. rather than countering hate with anger that summer, he redoubled efforts to strengthen democracy at home and both abroad. he is a shining example of the sort of leadership we require. before we begin, i would like to remind the audience that you can follow today's conversation on ntslive. at@aceve
open ais remark, we will conversation with a pulitzer prize-winning journalist, karen young. before the secretary-general comes to the podium, to illustrate what sort of a leader heis, as prime minister, spent an afternoon in oslo working incognito as a taxi sunglasses and a taxi drivers uniform so that he would not be so easily recognized. his exchanges were captured on a hidden camera. thought itecause he was important to hear what and what better way to do that then as a taxi driver? i understand you were a far more capable prime minister then taxi driver, but for all of you leaving today, you might want to
check twice who is in the front seat of your taxi. mr. secretary-general, the floor is yours. [applause] mr. stoltenberg: thank you for that kind introduction and for reminding me of the fact that i hourstaxi driver for five . if you watch the youtube video, you will understand that you are very right. that obvious from video it is better for passenger fromy in norway that i -- that video that it is better for passenger safety in norway that i concentrate on being prime minister and not driving taxis in oslo. i promise i will not try to drive a taxi again. i would rather be a passenger in
washington. but i would never drive a taxi in washington. that would be a great danger. it's great to be here, and it's great to see so many people in the audience. i welcome all of you. i see many from the diplomatic community. i would like to thank the atlantic council for working on especially thanks , andaking this possible also because under your atlantic council has worked tirelessly to promote efforts with the transatlantic cooperation. , transatlanticd corporation is needed more than ever. -- transatlantic cooperation is needed more than
ever. nato can focus that cooperation. half of the world's gdp and half might inrld's military a unique alliance that brings to bear the strengthen unity of north america and europe. that is what i want to discuss with you today. why it matters. how it is shaping our response to the actions of a more conservative russia, and how it must affine the way we tackle -- define the way we tackle challenges. the transatlantic alliance has its roots in common culture and values. these are bonds which carried us through the cold war. today, nato continues to serve the interests of each and every member.
security, prosperity, and open societies. none of these values are , butnteed by nato alone all would be at great risk without nato. a safer and stronger europe means a safer and stronger united states. that was the rationale behind the decision to create the , and it is just as valid today. because nato is as much an american organization as it is a european one. this was the spirit in which the alliance responded when the united states was attacked on 9/11. the only time the alliance has invoked article five of the
, which makeseaty clear that an attack against one ally is an attack against all. that collective decision led to nato's biggest ever operation in afghanistan, where hundreds of thousands of soldiers from europe, canada, and nato countries have served alongside u.s. forces, and where many have given their lives. without nato, transatlantic cooperation would be weaker, europe and north america less safe, and the world a more dangerous place. take russia. , i spoke in washington about its destabilizing behavior. its military buildup and its
aggression against ukraine, and i outlined how nato is responding. we are making significant progress. , andis becoming more agile we are increasing our readiness. we are reinforcing our collective defense, the largest collective defense since the end of the cold war. nato's response force is now three times bigger than it was before. we have set up a chain of new headquarters in the eastern part of the alliance, boosting our ability to plan, exercise, and reinforce if needed. the european reassurance initiative launched two years ago has been key. i met with president obama on
monday and thanked him for his strong leadership and strong commitment. i welcome his plan to quadruple funding for the european reassurance initiative. this increase -- this will our ability to strengthen the alliance. europeanease of the reassurance initiative would mean more u.s. troops and equipment on european soil, more opportunities for americans and europeans to participate in positionedises, more equipment and better entrance structure -- better infrastructure. together, this bolsters our defense and our ability to respond with strength and speed.
but transatlantic security does not rest upon american shoulders alone. europeans play a major role in .olicing nato's airspace europeans are providing the majority of forces in the , and for over a decade have contributed one third of .he forces in afghanistan they are also increasing defense spending after a long decline. in fact, last year, defense cuts in europe came to a halt. 16 european allies spent more on ,efense than the year before and they are adding capabilities such as the latest generation fighter aircraft, helicopters, and maritime patrols.
these are important first steps toward fulfilling our pledge to spend a percentage of gdp on defense and the capabilities we need. i determined that all allies pledge becauseat the burden must rest on all of our shoulders. ladies and gentlemen, we face a new strategic reality, and we must be prepared for the long haul. warsaw summit in july, we will seek to further strengthen our collective defense. have a multinational force in the eastern part of the alliance to make clear that an attack against one ally will be met by forces from a cross --
from across the alliance. we will enhance our resilience warfare and fighter jets and make sure the nuclear component of our deterrence posture remains credible and effective. we will advance our goal of a peace whole, free, and at with montenegro invited to join the alliance. we will reconfirm our long-term commitment to afghanistan, and we will take measures to respond to north africa. because homeland defense is not just about what we do at home. it is as much about what happens he on our borders. where we see -- beyond our borders.
we have a crisis of a magnitude not seen since world war ii. taking hold ofl spaces and spreading violence across the region and beyond. inciting attacks on our streets from brussels to stumble -- istanbul, from paris to san bernardino. attacks on our open societies, on the values we share, so our response must be strong, and it must be united. is international community rising to the challenge. i strongly welcome the efforts of the us-led local coalition to counter isil. projectbe willing to
stability beyond our borders. if our neighbors are more stable, we are more secure. to be clear, protecting stability has several elements. to defeat and destroy isil, we need to use force. ifitary action is essential we are to deprive isil of its strongholds in syria and iraq and stop the horrific violence ing.s inflict but projecting stability also means using armor forces to train others to fight. in the long run, it is more sustainable to enable local forces to protect their countries than it is to deploy large numbers of our own troops.
is an important lesson we have drawn from past operations. training matters. against terrorism, building local capacity is one of our best weapons, and earlier we can do it, the better. because a few months can mean a fragileence between state and a failed state. remain annato has to expedition alliance able to deploy forces outside our also become ao's more effective training alliance. we need to upgrade our capacity building efforts and enhance our cooperation with regional partners. today, i want to put forward three specific ways i believe we can do that. first, nato needs to strengthen
its ability to advise and assist local forces. for that, we need to make training a core capability of the alliance. we have trained local forces across the world for more than 20 years. teams toing advisory deploying military and police trainers on the ground, including an dangerous environments. we know how to generate a trainers,nal force of maximizing every contribution from allies and partners of all sizes. but today, we need a more robust approach, a responsive capability so that we can plan, , advise, andeploy
support training missions faster, and bring together the necessary troops for capacity building and training. doing inrently are afghanistan. -- kabul, and i met with the men and women of the air force, pilots and mechanics trained by nato. they were all very proud of what they are doing. i also met a group of remarkable young women who are working hard to become pilots in the african air force. it is that results -- resolve that makes me optimistic about what we can achieve. until a few years ago, there's
hardly any afghan air force at all. last year, the afghan air force flew 20,000 missions, providing transport, resupply, medical support, and engaging the enemy. they are part of the 350,000 strong afghan security forces will do by nato trainers over the years. and they are now responsible for the country's security. we continue to support them, but we have ended our combat mission, and this demonstrates what we can achieve by building local capacity. we also recently launched training and capacity building , moldova,s in georgia and jordan, and we will soon
begin advising on counterterrorism and helping to improve the capacity of their armed forces. with libya, we have an advisory council in tripoli. step inan important establishing national accord and setting the conditions for furthering national support. stands ready to assist libya. they will need our help. so, this is clear. nato needs to make training a core capability for the alliance. proposal is that nato should step up our support for iraq.
the ability of an iraqi government to restore security is critical to the stability of the whole region, and a stable iraq is key to the battle against isil. last week, nato started training iraqi officers in jordan. our program was developed in with thelaboration counter i so coalition. we should continue these efforts and, -- counter isil coalition. these effortsinue and, when appropriate, expand them. i met with the prime minister and discussed the challenges his and whyis facing training and capacity building is an essential part of the solution.
we should provide that help and we can do that in many different ways. one example is dealing with improvised explosive devices. wasovised explosive devices the biggest killer of forces when they retook ramadi from isil. programent training responds to this urgent need, and we should do more for a. -- for iraq. my third proposal is that we take our cooperation with regional partners and international organizations to a .ew level to protect stability in the region, we need to work with those who know the region best.
, the weeks ago secretary-general of the gulf cooperation council came to nato headquarters. we discussed the security challenges in the region and what more we could do together -- together. council isoperation enhancing its ability to conduct large-scale operations. is essential to maintaining a military structure. we are also exploring what more in areas such as counterterrorism, energy, and maritime security, and cyber defense. is to bring forward cooperation with the gcc at the warsaw summit in july.
the new nato regional cooperation center in kuwait also provides us with a way to reinforce our partnerships. the center will be a focal point where nato gulf partners will work together in areas such as military to military cooperation, strategic analysis, and civil emergency planning. special abdullah training operations center in accordingcertified, to nato standards, and this is with the training of iraqi officers is now taking place. we -- where the training of iraqi officers is now taking place. we must do more to complement and toal efforts strengthen the capacity of regional organizations. because this is the best way to leverage their expertise, their
resources, and their cultural awareness in support of our training missions. and to enable our partners in the middle east and north africa to play a great role in achieving regional security. everywhere i go in the region, leaders tell me they want more cooperation with nato. we must answer their call. ladies and gentlemen, the challenges from the middle east and north africa pose a direct ourat to our security, common values, and our common interest. must all work together to respond. we need to strengthen our own defenses and to make our partners stronger as well.
the threat from isil and other terrorist organizations will be with us for a long time, so we ,ust bring all tools to bear and nato is a powerful tool in which all our nations have made great investments. hasalmost 70 years, nato brought europe and north america closer together, providing for both sides of the atlantic. i know that i can count on continued leadership of the united states. i also know that the regional interests of europe and the are best served by a strong north atlantic alliance. of europee security is north america indivisible, and it is only by
paid. -- where so much attention was paid. you have had better attendance that has ever happened for a visiting nato secretary general obviously, it is an important time in the country as americans are trying to figure out who will lead them into the next heart of the 21st century. your remarks on the subject of nato's future addressed key questions of relevance on why it matters, questions that have obviously been front and center in the political debate. i want to talk about some of the specific initiatives you outlined, but first, i would european,k you, as a who spends much time around european leaders, about the debate here. president obama has repeatedly cited growing comes earns posed some of the wacky
or being made by presidential candidates. -- wackier suggestions being made by presidential candidates. secretary kerry last night said european leaders have written heatedly -- have repeatedly expressed concerns to him. many have specifically talked about the transatlantic alliance and suggestions about the value of nato. so, i want to ask you if you have heard the same concerns, and when europeans are sitting around without americans in the room, and you let your hair down, is that what you talk about? how much concern is there? well, i haverg: lost my hair, so that doesn't happen. [laughter]
first, i welcome that there is more attention to nato and nato related issues. that may be because of the election campaign. i will not be part of the election campaign. for decades, election campaigning was an important part of my life. but that is my previous life. now i and in some other kind of which -- i am in another kind of business, which is not election campaigns, especially in the united states. american people to decide who will be the next president, and i will in no way be part of that discussion or that campaign, but when i can say is that when i travel to different countries in europe, i see a very strong support for aansatlantic cooperation and
north atlantic alliance. we understand that in the united there are concerns that too many europeans are investing too little in defense, and that is why we have made a decision to increase spending. political leaders countries and other urged that. to not reduce is not a big toievement, but compared previous defense spending, it is the first step in moving toward the right direction. is the first up in the right direction after just one year. you asked whether europeans are
concerned. they are concerned in that many of them understand they have to contribute more to our collective defense and that we don't have a their burden fair burden -- they sharing now, and that is why all 28 allies agreed to step up in the agreement we made. karen: well said. are concerns in this country as well as in europe about how some of the conversation has been framed about nato. but the overall question, be on the question of burden sharing -- beyond the question of burden sharing, about nato's relevance, is not a new one. i think you have addressed that
in your remarks, but more in the years since the cold war ended, you have had a lot of foreign wallace the x expertsforeign-policy questioning whether nato should survive, and most of those concerns were based on the end of the soviet union. you spoke of the largest reinforcement of collective defense is the end of the cold war. of nato's some eastern members argue that the cold war never really ended. ageneral spoke recently of shift in nato doctrine from isurance to deterrence, which think in some ways is arguably a return to the past. i wonder if you could talk a bit about russia and what you think the actual threat is that russia poses to the alliance right now. what are putin's goals? are his actions arguably our
response, as some argued years ago, to nato's expansion right to russia's borders. is there a limit to russia's desire to expand its own sphere of influence, or do you think they see it as a defensive mechanism? mr. stoltenberg: i will say some words about russia in a moment, but i will start a commenting on the introduction to the question, because there is concern whether part of the debate in the united states provides reasons for concern in europe, that the united states is not focused on europe, that the united states is not going to continue to be part of our transatlantic alliance and so on. all, i would like to say that the first time i visited the united states was in 1980.
old -- no, not 21 years old. i visited the united states with my father and we traveled for a week around the united states. and then, the main issue was the concern that the united states was not going to support europe. that was in 1980. we have been concerned for many years, but we are still going strong. , we are concerned, but at the same time, we see that we have to deliver every day as a strong alliance, the strongest ever in the world. deliverble to deterrence, collective defense, and we are able to stand together when it is really needed. so, for instance, has i
mentioned in my speech, the first and only time ever we invoked collective defense goals was after attack on the united states, and then europeans stepped up to help and support our ally, the united states. of the forces, as i said, in afghanistan, have come from canada, europe, and , andean nato countries more than 1000 european and canadian soldiers have lost their lives in afghanistan, and many more have been wounded. , it's just a strong example of how our european allies than together with the united state when needed. -- ban together with the united states when needed. yes, i would like us to do more, but the alliance is working, the alliances delivering, and we
have initiatives around the world, and we have done it every day since 1980 when i was concerned the first time. so, i am permanently concerned right successful. -- but quite successful. then, about russia, we don't see any imminent threat against nato , includingtries countries in the eastern part of the alliance. but what we see is a more assertive russia, responsible for aggressive actions in ukraine and willing to use , the willingness to use capabilities to intimidate neighbors, to change crimea,in europe, annex , and havingukraine
troops in georgia, moldova, and so on. and this is, of course, of a concern, and that is why we responded. and when i say we, i mean the united states and europe together. did not have forces in the eastern part of the alliance. now we have forces there on a rotational basis, and we have increased our ability to redeploy forces if needed. so, again, i am concerned, but as long as we are able to adapt, and because we are able to adapt, we are responding to those concerns and making sure all nato allied countries are safe because nato is there. karen: but do you have a sense of what the ultimate goal is of ?ussia's actions after you strategized to provide this deterrent capability and show of strength, what is your
sense of what they are hoping to achieve? it is alwaysrg: dangerous to speculate, but what we see is that russia is trying to reestablish a sphere of influence around its borders. behaving asthey are they are in georgia and ukraine. and that's not acceptable because they are violating national law, disrespecting sovereignty and territorial integrity of independent nations, countries in europe, and that's also the reason why it's important that we respond. at the same time -- and we are responding by the biggest collective defense since the end of the cold war, but at the same time, i always underlined that seekingnot
confrontation with russia. we will avoid a new cold war. actually, we are striving for a more cooperative and constructive relationship with russia, but we believe we have to be strong, we have to be firm, we have to be predictable to establish basis for a political engagement and dialogue with russia. i have mentioned many times my belief is there is no contradiction between strong defense and political dialogue. actually, as long as we are strong, we can also engage in political dialogue, and in the long run, russia has to understand that they can gain more from cooperating with us instead of confronting us. karen: you spoke of out a new newtegic -- about a strategic reality that nato is facing and the primary threat to security right now seems to be
violent extremism and the spread of it. you outlined what is not role for nato,ew but certainly a broader makingon of that role in it into a core capability for nato, and that is the training a institutional aspects of it, and you set up three ways of doing that. the first one was to build capacities on the front line against violent extremism. obviously, that is what nato has been doing in afghanistan is the end of the combat mission. but i wonder if you are about what is happening in afghanistan. the new commander there is getting his own recommendations ready for the administration about what the u.s. military presence should be after the
beginning of 2017. current plans offer for it to be on must cut in half, the u.s. presence, the general nicholson has spoken regionally -- recently about how the training program really has been set back because of the level of fighting during 2015, which is one of the worst years they have had in a long time, not only ground forces, but forces in the air. would you expect nato forces -- assuming u.s. forces remain at their current level, would you expect nato components that are still active in afghanistan to do the same? think is the likelihood that they would be, as some u.s. forces have been, dragged back into the fighting as it becomes or difficult? moree fighting -- difficult? as the fighting season starts to ramp up again. the situationg:
in afghanistan is not easy. it is quite difficult. i visited afghanistan just a couple of weeks ago. the afghan national army has good forces and soldiers. the taliban and is trying to control different parts of the othery, and we have many groups, al qaeda, different terrorist groups, isil in afghanistan. it's in no way an easy situation. that, i think it's import to remember that it has not been easy in afghanistan for decades. the starting point was not a peaceful, stable country. the starting point was a country which was a safe haven for international terrorists, with the taliban controlling the country.
achieved with a presence there for many years is we have been able to build a strong afghan army which is capable, professional, and strong enough to take responsibility for security in the whole country. so, we were able to end our combat mission because we enabled them to do the fighting. i think we should continue to enable them, continue to support , i think iterefore was the right decision of president obama to maintain force levels through 2016. at the same time, the u.s. and the president have announced to 250ill go from 9800
5500 by the end of the year. what we have not yet decided in nato is what the other allies will do. that is something we will address at the summit in july. regardless of what we finally just i when it comes to the , we havethe mission already decided we will continue the country through 2017. we have not decided on force levels or the scope of our present. -- presence. so, i am not able to answer you precisely about what our presence will be, that i can say we will continue to support them, continue to train them, and continue to fund them. you have to remember that we are supporting the afghan army and
security forces in two ways. we provide training and assistance with troops, but we .lso fund the national army other nato partners are also contributing. concerned in europe that we are spending less than 2% of gdp on defense. in afghanistan, they spend 25% of gdp on defense, but of course, that is only possible because the main funding is coming from the united states and european allies and partners. so, we will continue to support afghanistan. themll continue to fund , becauseve a presence i very much believe we have to enable forces in the region to ,tabilize their own countries
and that is better than deploying a large number of combat troops. karen: just to continue on the theme of training as a core capability, you spoke about iraq and the expanded role nato could play there. there has been some suggestion that the coalition itself is coalition of the willing, and ad hoc structure without any particular thisture, and that perhaps is a role that nato could play, that nato could take over some of the organizational aspects of training as well as putting the various components in place to and that nato could actually serve, in the way it as in afghanistan, as kind of
secretary of war. theome ways organizing activities of the coalition there. could you talk more about that? the advantageg: is, for nato as a tool instance, building capacity, training, as we have done in afghanistan, if there was anything wrong with it in afghanistan, it is that we did not start the training earlier. we should have started to build capacity earlier and taken -- had the afghans take responsibility for their own security earlier. advantage of using nato is that nato has the structures and mechanisms for generating forces. we meet several times aear to generate forces to our missions , andghanistan, africa
other places. if we want to do training in iraq, we can do that. it is a stronger commitment when you are part of the nato alliance to provide these forces than the commitment to being part of a coalition of the willing. of the a coalition willing has a question of why you are willing. , we can provide more support for the united states. , we have the command structures, the different training centers. we have some in europe. .e work in jordan we will soon have a center in kuwait. training, capacity building, everything from building
institutions, defense ministries, headquarters, institution building to training soldiers in a dangerous environment. , we have the expertise and the experience. i mentioned improvised explosive devices. to counter ied's because we have done that for many years in afghanistan. we can take that experience and apply it in, for instance, iraq. , of course, nato will only two things which our allies ask us to do, and we have to -- only do things which our allies ask us to do, and we have to find a , and i between fighting think the coalition should continue to do that, but i think nato can do more coordinated and complement it with what
the coalition is doing when it training. many small and medium-sized countries, nato allies and partner countries, it is often expensive and difficult to do training on a bilateral basis. -- instance, in iraq are at in iraq, because when nato does the training, we have one agreement, one infrastructure. we have special operations forces to do some training. , just to negotiate all the legal arrangements you need to d the ploy -- deploy forces
in iraq, if nato is already there, you can just a ploy that framework. tois more cost effective plug into a nato framework. , i believe we can do more, but it has to be correlated with the efforts of the coalition and it has to be -- complementary and done in a way which would serve the purpose of the mission. you advocate taking over the existing bilateral training programs? canadians, the italians, there are lots of different separate training programs that differentre doing things with different groups of iraqis to a large extent. i would rather: speak about scaling up what we have started to do. that.d like to scale up
i think it is important to do this in coordination with the coalition. should do that, then evaluate the experience and decide if we should do more. the scale of the scope, i think we have to decide step-by-step and then have a pragmatic approach. because i think that, of course, we also need to continue to do airstrikes. natonot arguing that should take over the fighting. many alliest so doing that, the united states, u.k., france and others, but we need high-end airstrikes to help the iraqi forces liberate most l, but when that is
liberated, how do you hold it? how do you train to control it? and then you need trained, locald, professional, forces, and if that is not nato forces or u.n. forces, french or german -- u.s. forces, french or german forces, it has to be local forces. maybe we should start training them now, not to wait, because if you wait, it becomes more difficult and more expensive. that's also the case when it comes to another kind -- another group of countries. george -- jordan is a stable country, an island of stability in the sea of instability that is the middle east, but jordan is under pressure. to niece you -- tunisia is the same. pressureunder heavy from terrorist organizations, and we should help them now.
we should not wait until they are really into deep trouble and then help them. is better than intervention. that's a golden rule. we should help them now, not wait until later on. capacity building is also about ailding capacity before country slides into conflict or crisis, and then if the country is in crisis, we should help them build capacity to get out of that crisis. int is what we should do iraq. karen: what about syria? mr. stoltenberg: it is a great advantage for the coalition that so many nato allies and nato
drawers have been able to forces because nato has what we call interoperability, experience to work together in high-end, dangerous military operations, and we have developed that nato exercises, standardization, and of course, operations like in afghanistan, and this experience, this interoperability develops among nato allies and partners, extremely useful for the coalition in syria now. are alsocourse, we responding to the conflict in syria by supporting turkey, bordering syria and iraq. , andve assurance measures to stabilize do
the region is also relevant to syria. karen: i would like to open the floor to questions now. are there microphones? yes. identify yourself. hopefully, ask a quick question so we can have a lot of response here. yes, sir. go ahead. >> pleasure to hear your comments, secretary-general. i was wondering -- you talked about how nato can work closer .ith regional allies i wondered if you see a role for nato partners -- i'm thinking of sweden and finland, for example, in particular, you who have unique capabilities. is there a role for them here, and with that be a way to closely integrate them into nato and even getting them sort of --
persuade them for membership in the long term rather than having sort of the classic russia debate? would this be a way of making them more closely integrated into the nato network? mr. stoltenberg: i absolutely see a role for sweden and finland, joining our efforts to build capacity in north africa, the wider middle east region. sweden and finland are already contributing, and i welcome that very much. that is one of the advantages of nato. we have proven our ability to mobilize partner countries. in afghanistan, sweden and finland have participated and contributed a lot, so i welcome that very much, and i would like to see more of that. again, this is important for the mission, when sweden and inland are dissipated, but you also have to understand the way we
are ability -- developing our ability to work together, interoperability is through big operations like afghanistan and perhaps also other places. braggday, i visited fort air forceth the 82nd division. they told me about how they have been able to develop interoperability, the ability to by being stationed in afghanistan and work with nato allies but also sweden and finland. will have any impact on the membership debate in sweden, i don't know. but i have said before that i lost two references in norway trying to convince unions to join nato. so you should not ask me for advice on how to convince the swedes to join nato. [laughter] that is on the level of taxi
driving. [laughter] karen: yes, sir. >> i'm with kurdistan tv. what are russia and iran's role in syria? thank you. peshmurgapinion of forces. mr. stoltenberg: the peshmerga forces play an important role, and many allied countries are training for peshmerga forces as part of the efforts to degrade and destroy myself -- degrade and destroy isil. that is an example of how we are building local capacity. we do that already, but what i'm arguing in favor of doing that more and in a more organized name work. organized framework and with greater impact.
possible in syria and also -- russia's role in syria with theiran is regime, and they have declared that very clearly, and they had done that by deploying military thoughin syria, and even there has been some reduction in the russian presence, russia still has substantial military forces in syria -- air forces, .round forces, naval forces the main role of russia in syria is to support assad. karen: wow, so many of you. yes, ma'am. i told unido was a hot topic -- i told you nato was a hot topic. about how doask
you evaluate your relation with cooperation.of can nato assure them stability and security in the region with espect to iran? the other question is how much can you give nato in projecting stability in the region? mr. stoltenberg: well, as i said, i very much believe we can cooperation with the gulf cooperation council. this is the united arab him it -- i visited the united arab emirate a couple of weeks ago.
i think by helping countries in the region to stabilize the region, we are also making the country's more secure. nato taskidea is if force is more stable, they are more secure and we are more secure. security is not something you get less of if you share it. you get more security if you create security together. so i strongly believe in us working together with the gcc, and i also believe that the gcc countries can help us, working jointly, for instance, with isil, with building capacity in a country like iraq. for me, we have to do many things at the same time, and we have agreed that we will start to step up and, hopefully, we will be able to make decisions warsaw.to this in
karen: yes, lady in the back in red. >> i'm from the polish embassy. i wanted to ask a quick question, first regarding political deals with russia. what obligations must be fulfilled for full resumption of nrc work? the second question is as for effortsignment of nato to increase the presence on the americanlank with the eri initiative. and the last 1 -- is there an to look in theo
arctic? mr. stoltenberg: first, the nato-russian council -- it is important to underline the following, and that is after the illegal annexation of crimea in 2014, nato decided to suspend all practical cooperation with russia, but it decided at the same time to maintain our russiaal dialogue with or maintain channels for , so thel communication nato-russia council has never been suspended. actually, we had two meetings after the annexation of crimea. the idea that practical cooperation has been suspended, political dialogue has been in place, so the challenge has been not to have a decision to have the nato-russia council because
it has been there all the time, but the challenge has been to agree on the agenda for a new meeting, and we are in the process of discussing that with the russians, and, hopefully, we will be able to agree on the agenda and to convene a meeting. let me underline that for me, not an expression of weakness. it is an expression of strength. it is because we are strong, because we are confident that we are not afraid of talking to the russians. even during the cold war, we talked to them. interests is in our to talk to them on many different issues, especially related to military activity. i think it just underlines how important it is that we do our
utmost to have military to military communications, transparency predict ability, to avoid that kind of incidents. we have to try to avoid them and make sure that they do not spiral and come out of control and create really dangerous situations. dialogue is not weakness. dialogue is strength. sorry, there was two more questions. i forgot them. we decided at our defense ministerial meeting in february military increase our presence in the eastern part of the alliance. isctly the scale and scope not yet decided. we are working on that now, but what we are aiming at is a multinational force, sending a very clear signal that an attack on one baltic country or one of
those nato allied countries will trigger a response from the whole of alliance. the arctic -- it's cold there. [laughter] the other thing is that, you know, when most people say arctic, many people think of the north pole, but half of my own country is in the arctic. half of norway is in the arctic. i have seen many nice people of their and some polar bears. the reason i'm saying this is that nato is present in the arctic. the main nato forces in the arctic is danish forces, icelandic -- not so many icelandic. and of course, we have also nato .xercises
forces from many nato allied countries. nato is present in the arctic, and we have to follow the developments very closely because we have seen a russian military buildup in the arctic. at the same time, we have the the unitedcil where states is a member, canada is a member, russia, norway, many other countries. we have also a degree of cooperation in the arctic related to search and rescue, environmental issues with russia . i think it is extremely important we continue to do that and do not increase tensions in but try to calm the tensions. peoplei'm going to ask
to limit themselves to one question. questions have been really good, but maybe we could take two or three at a time if you will limit yourself just to one. yes, sir. then i'm going to come around. >> thank you. .'m from al jazeera tv there are so many voices saying that nato would be better off without turkey, claiming that turkey has betrayed the alliance iss collaborating with isis, fighting the kurds who are fighting isis, which is fighting the west. how did you comment on that? karen: let's take one more. yes, sir. go ahead. brookings. when general said recently he felt since -- he felt that
russians were weaponize and the situation with the aim of destabilizing europe. i know nato has sent patrols into the aegean recently, but my question is why it took so long for nato to respond to such a serious security threat to the european continent when greece and turkey, both front-line states, are members of nato. mr. stoltenberg: first of all, the problem is normally not too many questions but too long but it is hard to be brief because the questions are important. first, on turkey. turkey provides military assets, but in addition, turkey provides and otherture
facilities for the efforts of the coalition fighting isil, so without turkey, it would have an much more difficult to, for instance, conduct many of the airstrikes and so on fighting isil. second, turkey is the nato ally insurgents.d by the close to 2 million refugees. -- turkey is the nato ally most affected by the influx of refugees. close to 2 million refugees. nato's role ino addressing the refugee crisis, nato's main role has been to , tryingthe root causes to help stabilize the country the way refugees are coming from. when it comes to managing or handling the refugee crisis in europe, nato is normally not the first responder because this is
about, you know, border control, coast guard border control, humanitarian aid and so on to when we were but asked, we responded, and we actually responded very quickly because germany, turkey, and greece asked nato for help, and after 48 hour's, we were able to make the decision to provide the ships and assistance they asked for. 24 hours after we made a decision, the first nato ships were deployed into the edgy and see -- the edgy and see -- the aegean sea. this is an example of how nato can respond quickly. we have ships doing
reconnaissance, surveillance, monitoring, and sharing in real time the data they are gathering withthe greek coast guard, the turkish coast guard, and with the european union border this information is useful, four, for instance, the , turningoast guard back and intercepting the smugglers and illegal networks. so i think nato plays a useful role helping the local coast guard's. nato is not in the business of turning back votes with refugees and migrants. our role is to help, assist, .acilitate after that, perhaps the most important thing nato is doing in the edgy and -- the aegean sea
is create a coalition for turkey and greece, turkey not being a member of the european union, but turkey and greece both being members of nato, so nato is an ideal platform for providing the necessary cooperation. karen: there was something about russia at the beginning of the question. sorry.ltenberg: yes, , especially when they were bombing aleppo, was to increase the number of people fleeing syria and increasing the pressure on turkey and on europe . that somevery much weeks ago, the united states, russia, and other actors in the region were able to reach disagreement -- able to reach an
agreement on cessation of hostilities, and even if we still have violations, hostilities have gone substantially down, and we also see that the parties have been able to meet again and start negotiations and try to negotiate a political solution to the crisis in syria. that will not be easy. it will not happen fast. there will be setbacks and disappointments, but in the long run, we need to negotiate a political solution, so i strongly support those efforts, to make sure that the cease-fire is holding and to make sure that they continue negotiations and talks to find a political solution. i know is, sir, cheated you before, so you go ahead. >> you mentioned russia violating international law. if you could comment perhaps on
greece's violating international law after blocking message of you's nato membership. greece has a fairly new government in place. macedonia may have a new government starting in june. what role will your office plate in improving relations and finally lifting this blockage on macedonia's nato membership? karen: yes, ma'am. >> thank you. member of the syrian opposition dedication to geneva. you all -- delegation to geneva. you already spoke about russia's role, and i was waiting to hear the nato counter strategy to at least having some balance on the ground, but i want to ask you -- i will not ask you that question. my question is -- there has recently been an effort by the gcc led by saudi arabia to
establish the islamic coalition against isis. if they asked, would this newly formed islam coalition against isis for a direct intervention in syria -- yes or no? thank you. mr. stoltenberg: if the question conductato is going to a direct military intervention into syria, the answer is no, but if the question is if we are going to work together with the islamic coalition to counter isil, then the answer is yes because i welcome that islamic countries are going together to fight isil. i think it is extremely important that islamic countries are in the war front, and as, four and is, the king of jordan has underlined again and again, this is not a fight between the
west and the muslim world. this is a fight against peoplests, criminals, responsible for violent atrocities, and most of the , and muslimsuslims are at the front fighting isil. my main message is we should support, help, in able, train, assist. we should help them in many different ways to win that fight, so if you ask me if we should help the muslim world, muslim forces, muslim countries it is a strong yes. that was the last question. the first was about the former yugoslav republic of macedonia. likeeason why i say it that is that you know and i know that the problem has been ever since the nato summit in
bucharest, i was there -- that we do not have an agreement on the main mission. as long as that issue is is no way we can solve the question of membership. karen: i think we have time maybe for two more. all right. then in back of you over there. on the eastern border of nato, we are highly appreciative of your leadership in addressing the key issues of .einforcing the eastern flank how do you see this reinforcement process from a black see perspective -- black
sea perspective, a region that has multiple challenges both from the east and from the south? thank you. with defense one. secretary carter said the u.s. was talking to nato about joining the counter i sold -- isil coalition. i wondered what that would involve beyond advising and assisting. mr. stoltenberg: the black sea is very important. ishave seen that prussia developing what experts call
a2ad, and they are deploying those capabilities, for instance in crimea, and we see a pattern all the way from the baltic sea .own to the black sea of course, one of the reasons why we are increasing our , why we are increasing the readiness of forces and why we are also developing our nato has to is that be able to overcome those capabilities. our maritime presence is and we also have a .aritime component we often speak about this brigade, but there is an air
component that is part of our response to what we also see in the black sea. so, yes, we are very much aware of the challenges in the black sea, becoming more serious because of the russian annexation of crimea and the strong military buildup in crimea. nato is not formally part of the coalition, but nato supports the coalition. first of all, all nato allies provide forces. as i said, nato supports the coalition in different ways. assurance missions in turkey, capacity building in iraq. our biggest military operation ever is relevant for the fight against terror, including against isil.
,nd we stand ready to do more which is key. one issue we have discussed and also during my visit this week and also with secretary carter was the possibility of nato surveillance plane, and that is on the table now. it is going to be addressed in nato. will be able to provide you with a more precise answer, but >> we promised the secretary-general we would get him out on time. seapologize to everyone who questions we didn't get to. the many questions testifies to both the relevance and the level of interest, and we have managed
[indistinct conversations] >> tomorrow morning at 7:00 in the morning, c-span, "washington journal" will take your calls about the future of nato and the u.s. role in that military alliance. every dayn journal," at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. the former head of the cia and the national security agency is backing republican presidential candidate john kasich. his -- general michael hayden said governor kasich is the most experienced candidate and has serious proposals to strengthen the military and defeat isis. governor kasich back in his own state of ohio, delivering the state of the state address tonight.
he speaks to the state legislature in the city of marietta, in southeast ohio. on c-span atve 7:00 eastern. also live coverage of two campaign events. hillary clinton speaking at carnegie mellon university in pittsburgh ahead of the pennsylvania presidential primary on may 20. you can see that -- on may 26. you can see that live on c-span3. on c-span 2, donald trump campaigns in new york on the town of bethpage in long island. the new york presidential primary is april 19. >> this week on c-span, supreme ourt cases that shaped history come to life with the series "landmark cases, historic supreme court decisions." the 12 part series explores the real-life stories and constitutional dramas behind some of the most significant decisions in american history. >> this is a case about
presidential power and its limits in times of war. it put before the court central themes about the conditions under which presidents can do things not expressly stated in the constitution, and the limits of congress and courts to place on it. >> chief justice rehnquist said the case has come to be accepted by the culture. how many cases can we say about that? >> it was a sweeping decision. it isolated the u.s. as one of only four nations that allow itrtion for any reason, yet has not settled the issue is all -- at all. >> tonight we look at the case ohio, which made it illegal for evidence obtained without a warrant to be used at trial. watch on c-span and at www.c-span.org. >> homeland security secretary
jeh johnson said today that rhetoric in the 2016 presidential race is making his job protecting the country more difficult. france-presse says he compared the current anti-muslim sentiment to the anti-communist "red scare" of the 1940's and 1950's. his remarks are about half an hour. >> my name is tom wheelock of creative associates. since the tragedy of 9/11, the united states and international partners have been combating threat of terrorism on multiple fronts. it is a threat that is neither constrained by international borders or limited to a single ideology. insident obama has set off -- said often that is most solemn responsibility is to ensure the safety and security of the american people. in 2010, he launched a national strategy for counterterrorism.
last year at the white house summit on countering violent extremism, he outlined our nation's approach, the major points being that we must confront and discredit extremist economic andddress political grievances that feed extremism, empower local communities, effectively communicate across national boundaries and among religious s, all the while remaining true to our values. at its foundation, this strategy encompasses a whole of government approach, with the department of homeland security as a major contribute and implement your. today, we are honored to have as keynote speaker the u.s. secretary of homeland security, the honorable jeh johnson. [applause] since 2009, secretary johnson
has been a critical member of the president's national security team, and has a deep understanding of the threats and challenges facing the united states. as the pentagon's general counsel, he helped design and implement many of the policies that have kept our country safe. time and again, he has been in the situation room contribute into critical decisions affecting our national security and public safety. as secretary, he has taken strong steps on both counterterrorism and countering violent extremism, and has led transformational efforts to make our nation a safer place. some examples. . under his leadership, the department has taken aggressive measures to further improve aviation and airport security. this includes enhanced security at overseas airports and continuous background checks on airline and aviation personnel. he recognizes that america's first line of defense against terrorism is our local police,
and accordingly last year the department of homeland security provided over $200 billion in homeland security assistance to state and local governments. in response to the growing use of social media by terrorist organizations for improvement of --lowers in the u.s. recruitment of followers and the u.s., the department used social media to identify youth most susceptible to these messages. at the same time, the department is building bridges to diverse sets of communities, knowing that well-informed families and communities are one of our best defenses against the lure of terrorist ideologies. we often do not hear about the outstanding work of the department, but in the realm of homeland security, no news is good news, and no news is the result of hard work, vigilance, and dedication by the professionals and staff of the department of homeland security.
mr. secretary, during the difficult times, we thank you for your study and strong leadership of the department, ensuring the security of our nation. ladies and gentlemen, it is my honor to present to you the secretary of the u.s. department of homeland security, the honorable jeh johnson. [applause] thank youjohnson: very much, tom. thank you for the comments. you noted several things that are not just simply lifted off my wikipedia. [laughter] things noted a number of that have been significant, in terms of our department's activities over the last several years. listening to the minutes"ion, of a "60
segment on me about a year ago. during this time in the obama administration, leslie stahl in the lead-in captured it as saying, in the first four years as the general counsel of the department of defense, giving the legal signoff too many counterterrorism operations, i was on offense. now in the second term as secretary of hamas security, very often i find myself on defense. in the second term as secretary of homeland security, very often i find myself on defense. but there are various initiatives i have undertaken that we are very proud of, including our efforts at outreach and building bridges to communities to our newly created office for community partnerships, which i am proud of and i believe is reflective
of who we are as a country, reflective of our immigrant heritage and the manner in which we hope to embrace communities, new ways of immigrants, and the like. and the diversity of our country. now, i do have to just a part for a minute to reflect on the events of last night. people are wondering what i'm talking about. i am talking about detroit versus florida, the marlins game, season opener. to throw the first pitch in florida. it was my third first pitch as secretary of homeland security. the first pitch at citi field in 2014, the first pitch at the nats game in 2015, and i had the privilege of throwing the first pitch last night in miami. throwing a first pitch, though i used to play baseball, is the most stressful thing that i do.
[laughter] it is more stressful than any speech, any congressional testimony. because you only have onerm up s and what they, tell you when you throw a first pitch, whatever you do, do not throw it in the dirt. throw it over the backstop. hit a fan. totally wild pitch. but do not throw it in the dirt. i have been told that three times, repeatedly, before each of the three times i have done this. i practiced,, practice practice. it is stressful, because there are no do overs. when i create remarks for a speech, or create talking points, i create them and say, no, that's not right. i revise and work them over and massage them. i might even choose to massage a speech in the middle of the speech. but once the ball leaves your hand, there is no do over, no
second chance. it is all in the hands of god. the first pitch for the new york mets, in the dirt. i got the ball. it has the dirt mark on it. the second pitch at nats stadium last year was in the dirt. this is in front of 20,000, 30,000 people. last night, i said to david samson, the president of the club, just before i ran out onto that beautiful mound, that beautiful field. i feel a strike. i feel a strike. i really feel good about this. then i went out there. i did not even hit the dirt this time. i hit the infield grass. [laughter] sees that nobody on youtube or espn or anything. it was not one of my more proud moments as secretary of homeland security.
today.ou for being here of our more important initiatives, for our government and for this president's administration. a are in, as all of you know, new phase in the global terrorist threat, which includes not only the prospect and threat byterrorist-directed attacks operatives who are trained and equipped overseas, someplace, and exported to another country, but the prospect of terrorist-inspired attacks by those who are terrorist-inspired or terrorist-enabled, a new term we use now, terrorist-enabled, not just terrorist-directed.
terrorist-inspired or terrorist-enabled. and those who would tof-radicalized, in response things terrorist organizations put out on social media, on the internet. it makes for a more complicated world. because those who self-radicalize, as everyone knows, could strike with little or no notice to our intelligence community or our law enforcement communities. yet when someone does self-radicalize, one or perhaps two or three people, there is somebody, almost always, who was in a position to know or who did so close to that know close todid that person or persons. i also know from my experience in homeland security and my prior time at the department of
defense, we can kill an enemy but not necessarily defeat an enemy. mission, as we refer to it inside the beltway, is as important as any of our current homeland security missions, basic security, aviation security, maritime security, cyber security. as work we do here is important as any other mission we can undertake to keep the homeland, keep our homeland safe. in my view, building bridges to communities is essential, a central part of our mission. i'm gratified to see that within the last several years, our efforts have expanded and grown, and there is growing interest in our efforts. this conference today is
reflective of that. i look around the room and i see all the material outside, the content of the discussions. i'm gratified that so many of us are now dedicated to this effort. building bridges is key. cbe is not a law enforcement mission. not a military mission. this is a homeland security mission, which is why i have personally undertaken, on my personal plate, a large part of this mission. toave personally been boston, new york, brooklyn, columbus, dearborn, l.a., houston, minneapolis, and elsewhere. i will be going to philadelphia the next several weeks. toour mission to build, partner with communities through our newly created, under the
leadership of george salines, our newly created office for community partnerships, which leads the current interagency force efforts at countering violent extremism. few of my ownu a observations i would like to leave you with. about the domestic discussion, our domestic debate about cve, and my own observations with efforts in the united states on cve. observation one. i'm happy to say, bipartisan effort with bipartisan support. there's bipartisan support in congress for our cve efforts.
there are those on both sides of the aisle who want to support and expand upon my department's role in cve. is pending legislation to formally recognize and authorized an office for community partnerships, which has bipartisan support, particularly in our committees for homeland security. comment number two. many people ask me, are you targeting muslims? why are you targeting muslims? that isr t that -- to that our cve mission is a generic one. we are not targeting a religion, or even a specific group. we have a generic mission, but i must offer several caveats.
first, the islamic state, which is the most visible, most prominent, and probably most dangerous terrorist organization we face right now, is targeting american muslims, so we must respond in counter to that effort, as a matter of homeland security. which is why when i talk about building bridges to communities, most often i am talking about building bridges to american muslim communities, because that is who the islamic state is targeting. by their nature, domestic-based extremism, violent extremism, homeland, in the purely domestic-based with a purely domestic focus, are frankly difficult to engage. i don't have roundtables with violent white supremacists, as
you might suspect. nature a different set of problems. we do have opportunities to build bridges with american muslims, and american muslim community leaders who are patriotic americans and who do want to help protect our homeland. view, must, in my continue to build the bridges and take advantage of those opportunities. observation or comment number three. there is no one american muslim community, contrary to some of the political dialogue you may hear. contrary to some of the rhetoric, over-some plastic rhetoric, there is no -- over-simplistic rhetoric, there is no one muslim community, no one hispanic community in this
country. there are 1.6 billion muslims in the world. one in four people in the world are muslims. it is the second-largest religion in the world, as diverse as christianity. muslims occupy every continent of this planet, including this continent, and there are sects as diverse as christianity. in this country alone, among 3 million muslims, they include african-americans, egyptian americans, indonesian americans, iraqi americans, syrian americans, and many others. i personally witnessed a pakistani american community in boston is very different from a syrian community in houston, or a somali american community and minneapolis. so the american muslim communities in this country are as diverse as christianity. there is no one neighborhood or that one could
encircle or surveil to surveil american muslims, contrary to some of the political rhetoric that is out there, some of the overheated political rhetoric out there. so, as we build bridges to communities, we have to recognize there is indeed an "s" at the end of that word -- communities. a a broad -- it encompasses broad set of communities across this country. observation number four. as we build bridges, we do indeed encounter suspicion among a lot of people, who suspect us of being law-enforcement undercover. it's not surprising we would encounter suspicion, but we keep at this.
i believe in the 27 months i have been secretary, i have seen our efforts bring success. buto encounter suspicion, people to hear our message and respond to our message. in fact, i know we are having success with our messages when we do encounter suspicion. we do encounter suspicion, but people do hear us. people want to hear us, and people do hear us. observation, number five, which i have repeated several times, and i have promised american muslim communities i would repeat several times. it is in fact true. thise ever heard me say before. the overwhelming -- it needs repeating -- the overwhelming, overwhelming majority of am
erican muslims, including those who serve in our united states military, by the way, and in our u.s. government, are patriotic, dedicated people who love this country, and who want to help us with public safety and secure our homeland. they know it's their homeland, too. i have been to the adams center in north virginia twice. begin our we discussions with the pledge of allegiance by a boy scout group and a girl scout troop. it bears repeating, though it should be obvious, the overwhelming, overwhelming majority, emphasis, of american muslims are patriotic americans like the rest of us. observation number six.
you heard tom say part of the president's agenda is to empower local communities. that is correct. as i have traveled the country, i have noted the call for help and resources in communities to support their local, community-based efforts at countering violent extremism within those communities. these immunities the resources, which is why i'm pleased that in this year's budget our congress has provided to the department of homeland security grant money for the first time to support our cve efforts. a modest start, $10 million. i know george wishes we had more. i wish we had more, and i hope '17, but it'sn fy a good start. we have opened that door.
empoweringefforts at local communities through grantmaking expand beyond this year. observation number seven. the tech sector, as many of you know, and philanthropy can help with our efforts to withnthropies can help efforts to empower communities and support local efforts in those communities. i hope in my reading time as secretary to broaden the conversation to include philanthropies. the tech sector can help, and is helping, providing an alternate message to the message of the qaeda, andte of , al others. we have seen progress already, and i have been pleased by the fact several companies in the tech sector have such forward to provide -- stepped forward to
provide leadership in this regard. the tech sector is also coming inand becoming more active taking down terrorist content on the internet. it's a difficult job. it has gotten more complex with advances in technology, but the tech sector is interested in helping us to take down, and will take down if they have the opportunity, content that violates their terms of reference. this is a cve mission, and i hope the government and tech partner.n find ways to eight, whichumber i have said now a number of times quickly -- publicly in news interviews and other places. efforts to villify and isolate american muslims are counter to
our homeland security interest and counter to our national security interest. given the nature of the global terrorist threat, we need to build bridges to communities, not vilify them, not drive them into the shadows, not isolate american muslim communities. we need to build bridges. so dialogue, proposals, proposal s for certain immigration policies that vilify american muslims are counter to our homeland security interest. while i have publicly avoided on numerous occasions participating debate, year's political which is hard to do, i have when rhetoric, frankly,
is counter to our homeland security interest, to our national security interest, is spoken out -- have spoken out. efforts and dialogue that have the effect of vilifying american muslims are counter to our homeland security interest. i continue to repeat that. the last comment i have, which is one i believe firmly and personally in -- you heard this earlier. our efforts must be consistent with who we are, consistent with our values, consistent with our immigrant heritage. this is something i believe in personally. this is a nation of immigrants. am proud of the fact we are diverse society that embraces each wave of immigrants,
embraces people of numerous religions and faiths, and i be lieve that those who know our history can and should learn from it, and those who do not know our history are bound to re peat it. so i testify i testified a number of times in congress. i testify a lot. the committee that it testify before most is probably the house homeland security committee. committeehat the holds its hearings in the same room with a house on