tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 19, 2016 2:00am-6:01am EDT
prizes will be awarded and shared between 100 30 students and 53 teachers. -- thend prize of 50 of grand prize of $5,000 will go to the best. usk your calendars and help spread the word to student filmmakers. for more information, go to our website, studentcam.org. now, the logistical preparations for leaving the eu. it outlines the role of parliament during the brexit negotiations, immigration, and establishing new trade relations with europe. this is just under two hours. call to order. welcome. call to order. welcome to the session on foreign affair session.
on gaining information into the brexit exit. so you're very welcome, i know this is your second gig in two days and that you have told the house of the european union yesterday on it was a particular pleasure. which i hope to repeat today. >> is that the reason you chose to sit at that end of the building? >> i did not even do the scheduling. between your clocks in my office. >> i don't imagine it was with our clocks. >> you made some pen a decision to go there first. but that is the general hook that i want to take into my next question which is to examine your assessment of the legal and parliamentary implications of the brexit.
can we confirm that there is going to have to be an actual act in order to leave the european union? >> there there has to be some legislation, no doubt about that. there are various stages, firstly with dealing with the european community in 1972 and all the consequential legislation after that. there mayor may well have to be parliamentary -- under the relevant 2010 legislation. and that's the absolute minimum i can see. >> so we cannot leave the european union if that legislation is not in place. >> what we can leave, but what the legislation does is put in place directives.
>> while the conversation puts in place directives and various pieces of law which would still have an effect if we didn't. >> but it's taking a change to remove ourselves in that circumstance there is still be read porting back. >> what i'm seeking to establish is there are not acts in which they could be repealed. >> that's correct. >> so at the other end of the building rather than starting here is that my assessment is that a majority to support the prime minister and despite the fact that a number were campaign to remain in the european union as they have accepted this decision to hold the electric and will now support the government in the process of
leaving. however it's my assessment that you could not -- that that position at the other end of the building? would you agree with that. >> will first thing is you're wrong about the calculation. there is no calculation. >> it secondly i have not made an assessment of what the balance of power or balance of voting would be in each house. for a start on the legislative change what i think be debated at least in part where the negotiation got to. whether or not where as individual members of each house prove what we have done. so i don't know where we will be. my hope and my intention is that will have the majority in both how. >> look i gently suggest to you that the government could be
reasonably competent at this into the building in order to carry out the referendum. and then there is a question about the attitude of where the government is a minority and there is a number of those amongst them. you are very determined to try and obstruct the countries route to brexit. if you are in that place, then obstructing the acts of parliament to enable brexit, is something that is going to have to be overcome by the house of commons using the parliament sacked. so what i am suggesting to you and your degree is actually quite a sensible idea for the legislative protest to commence insufficient time to be on the statue having overcome opposition in the house by these of the parliament so that we can
leave the european union in the early part of 2019. >> again, i will challenge your debate. what the government is doing is carrying out the biggest mandate that has ever been given to a government by the british people. the largest number nearly 17 a half-million people. the majority over one and a quarter million i think. if it if it hadn't been the general election between two parties leave and remain. the majority of the remain would have the bigger than blair had an -- is a very clear mandate. i think the house of lords would be quite unwise not to take that mandate seriously. they have a perfectly reasonable position in challenging some of the elements of whatever negotiations turn out. but i would be very surprised if
-- >> well it's already in the view of this committee that the government it would be guilty of great negligence and not preparing for the possibility that the country might actually leave for brexit. >> it also would be the view of the community that it might be gross negligence if you proceeded under the assumption that all is going to be fine at the under other end of the building. because and will get, when it be more prudent to make sure that your legislation was in place insufficient times and actually allowed it to be with the european union. >> on the date of the government's choosing or the conclusion that the negotiation two years after. >> you're jumping to conclusions of the committee report rather a decision i have yet to take. i suspect, i clearly intending
to get us to the position of leaving union within the normal article 50 timetable. i will make the arrangements that are necessary to get there. that is the simple case of the matter. i will not, i'm afraid. with this committee or any other about the way either house will vote. that is for others to be. and i will make decisions based on their advice. i certainly will not be airing such decisions in public anymore than i will -- same problem,. >> turning to that matter and grateful for your reply to the attorney general on legal issues regarding the united kingdom's exit of the eu. i wrote to jeremy wright on the 29th of june and invited him to reply by wednesday the 30th of july.
am delighted he replied on the 13th of september. >> what that's not satisfied buys the terms of your answers. you want to explore while you're unable to give answers to rather basic questions. the first question i posed was the regulations that currently apply to the u.k. [inaudible] that that struck me as a rather straightforward question. in your reply said you would appreciate the questions raised in your letter-on issues that are of legal proceeding to which they are in party. there would not be to leave comments on. please explain how sick boat
technical question as to whether it's possible for single act impinges on action being taken by the government from article 50. i can talk to you about the issues of the act of parliament. let me do that here now. there are number of ways you could put into effect such an act. one of them is to put everything into place at once. it would be huge and to come back to your position earlier about timing on this, it would have to wait until very late on in the process because we would need to know what we're doing with each components of the exit from the union. even where it simple with almost
no amendments to it where we say to do the changes later on. it's going to get complicated. when local government does decisions on the european law they have to put a bit into the european journal. clearly that would be simple. so so you have all of those things, either directly or under henry viii causes that's one aspect of it. the other way we can do it is simply but it still leads you exposed to those problems. and and then you could do it rather morally and then -- so there's a problem. >> that's my question, out of the question you posed my letter to the attorney, the reason you
gave for not answering the question wasn't impinged -- i don't understand. >> the question posed can the regulation directly apply to the u.k. should parliament parliament we should take it. your answer is that it is illegal. and that. >> in that case thousand air because i thought it was a different reference. >> i'm wondering if you could have another go at the letter. >> we can of course. but we can also deal with the expensive issue right here. which is, the nature of the legislation which you are likely to carry through. you can can either have very simple legislation which meets your requirement early which he raced earlier. >> what's the simplest?
my sumption is that you have all this directly applicable regulation which is not been put through and not in british lot the moment. we're going to need the european union and to try to make a judgment other these 6987 regulations that directly apply and we go through them one by one which were going to keep and which were going to leave when we leave. or are we going to keep all of them into law on the ticker time to go through and decide which ones we don't want. >> in the decision will have to take his specifically with legislation with the cast dating set of ties. the race issue of the house of lords. dislike the henry the eighth causes. and it's not like things that. [inaudible] or you could do it with a small piece of upfront legislation we
can do -- because you would need to know what the changes were before he started. the legislature. >> i think what you have said an answer the question is yes. and there are options. >> let me be clear, don't don't you to take a misguidance from me. now you can auger you i answer the question one, yes. yes. was question one. >> it was can all the directly applicable regulations apply the u.k. >> i'm grateful for that. for that clarity. that's been a bit of of a go on the second question. i posted a letter to you. and i wonder whether we might be possible for you to get a copy
of the exchange in front of the secretary to ease it. but let me, for the benefit of the record the second question on the nasty and what time should the u.k. in the e.u. trade at the end of the two-year negotiating mandate mandated by article 50 of the treaty, if no deal has been agreed between the u.k. in the e.u. on the terms of the uk's exit of the e.u. and no deal has been agreed on the terms of the future relationship between the uk and the e.u. so it is the wrapper obvious possibility that there is either a blocking minority amongst the 27th who declined to come to agreement or the european parliament has a majority against whatever is negotiated between the e.u. and the 27. do. do not strike me as a rather obvious possibility. the answer you gave to me and
the committee was turning to trade were about to be good these associations, as the prime minister said, the u.k. will strike agreement that kids the best deal for people at home and the right deal for britain abroad. while that is not in the gift of the prime minister, it it is going to have to be an agreement between us and our 27 partners endorsed by the majority of the european parliament. to the the prime minister can make that statement. >> but the fact is she cannot guarantee it. >> nobody can guarantee that. >> so therefore the bottom line in the process you're about to embark is that there is no route. >> that's one possible outcome.
>> but if you look at the attorney general and was kind enough to send me a letter -- i think it is rather simple question and for a very important reason should answer it as soon as you are in a position to do so. what happens if there is no agreement? because that then addresses uncertainty that is out there. for example in the memorandum from the japanese for example. people looking for certainty as to what happens. if it is clear if there is no agreement to the negotiations with the position then you address the uncertainty
inside that individual company and make that commercial adjustment according with whatever guidance they're going to get. but then you would at least know how bad it can get from that position. or how good it can get. it might be an opportunity if there's no deal. but simply simply explaining the technical position is going to be in terms of trade into the single market it strikes me as necessary. >> it depends on what you're after. if you are after a factor statement of what the outcome could be it is i guess what is normally known as a wto. that is what i guess you can conclude outside the union would say no deal. but i would not want anyone to think that the likely outcome. >> i'm. >> i'm not asking if it's a likely outcome. i'm inviting us to get to an
agreed understanding that it is a wto that would govern the sales of the u.k. so it would be a u.k. good into the single market. >> but that is a matter of commonly held fact i think. >> that is all i was seeking to get the confirmation of because it has been suggested that their complications with the wto in position and if you're telling the committee that it's a commonly held fact then that gives everybody a bottom line from which all the interest from the very large number can begin to go. >> accept, and this is a problem here because we are dealing with -- is extremely complicated. the wto essentially provide
tariffs, that's one of the primary issues. it's a simple answer to but it doesn't encompass everything. >> understands, of course. about how the nontariff areas are operated and the rest. but i think there is a very great need for much clarification of what can be reasonably clarified in terms of the obvious band of what could take place. and one is no agreement. for that to be clearly put out there you have to, you did a great deal further and answers to me the letter that you signed off on they eroded hayes when it was outstanding. >> it wasn't outstanding to me. >> i appreciate that. and i'm grateful.
>> no good deed goes unpunished. >> i'm very grateful for the detail that you have narrated. just one thing. who are you going to be negotiating with? >> it will vary by state. to give you an example, will first off, the commission has appointed mr. -- the counselor, the parliament appointed mr.. and of course on the national level we're talking to many people.
so for example last week i went to dublin and i spoke with the secretary, spoke to the justice secretary. >> i understand the discussions have to go around. who are you formally negotiating with? >> well formally with the council, that is what the article says. and by the commission. >> and it's not for me to result, if you will forgive me. >> we may come back to the involvement of the european parliament later in questions. >> thank you. >> i just wanted more clarity on question on the letter when he say to have legislation where we adopt -- i thought you then went on to say that would be problematic when you the example of the local authority having to
publish all of that. >> will have to deal with that on the series of one-on-one legislations. something like that i think goes inside. >> now i would not be confined to just that. it would not be confined to a minor problem. there would be substantial changes. changes in immigration law. changes in a series of -- some of which and so you have the problem there is generating -- with primaries because many saw the issue in ways that the chairman was earlier if you have a problem and don't have time to get it through, and of course you can see that i can understand can't give any
committee negotiations on positions of the government would take. but could you at least say he said the government had to agree to appear with objectives. >> that is one area. >> the prime minister said we're not going to -- on 50 until the new year at the end of this year. because we are going through that process and he talked if you want to hear it there negotiating tactics and legalities in the very things were talking about, all of those things really have to be very clear before you start. so we will arrive at that sometime in the new year. so you'll have all your objectives in place sometime in the new year i'm not going to
get it a guess on when. >> as i have said before i would rather go a month late and get it right then go a month early and get it wrong area it's like you said but it care -- the prime minister has something very implicit. she said she knows the british people expects us to be expeditious about it. after reaching that negotiated position. [inaudible] >> i -- the level of detail here will be set up very clearly.
>> you have parliament having an interest in as i said we will meet that to get the best possible solution. so that would be a negotiating strategy. but also we have to write, when we write under article 50 we write a letter and i assume that a letter would include a statement of what were trying to achieve so. >> again when i can go early. >> and then you talked about key stakeholders which you mentioned yesterday, can you explain in more detail how the process will actually work. will you publish for evidence or evidence for stakeholders? or will you select those that you wish.
>> i mean some will be self-selecting because frankly anybody can with concern about their industry would be wanting to have that. so this last week a group from the city chaired by the chancellor, i have one this week which is -- >> so when you set in the house so there's a whole series about where we think there is an issue and people who are concerned to move forward. and that is all very representative of this organization.
>> we put aside for a second but also every single department of state is also be an, it was taft at the beginning of coming back with a whole series, with their primary concerns so that's happening too. so i can't think of any other way and every department is actually submitting resources to the? >> yes. more resources, my department as i said yesterday is quite small. it has grown rapidly in the last
month really. overdoing, the strategy that were taking is having a small number of very high caliber is more effective and it's a better way of doing things. the stuff between now and then is negotiation and it would involve a degree of assessment, so let me give you an example. somebody has said that nonoaud
so before we get to start with negotiation will have an idea what is what matters and what doesn't. >> we will know it is all could be complex negotiations but many believe that this access to the single market cannot begin on the terms of the reasonable sides. certainly for those you should not be afraid to go back on the rules. >> i went to commit to any
particular strategy at this point for obvious reasons. but first let me offer a philosophical approach to the negotiation. i think it would be a bad idea to go to the negotiation -- because it weakens you in one aspect or another. in speaking to -- about the calculations that should go on and we will assess not just what we are given but also the policies that go with it. so people might say is going to cost this or that. they haven't necessarily looking at what we might do to mitigate costs. so i see nothing in that. >> let me talk about immigration.
with trade negotiation. many of those you think are out, one of the key reasons was you have an immigration system that is actually discriminatory and discriminates against the rest of world outside the e.u. the criteria that was given in the policy going forward, is that the sense in the conditions within government as you see it where you're sitting? >> my job is to get the powers back to respect the judgment of the rudest people in the referendum which i think of in terms of borders, money, etc. to respect that is much as we candid negotiation as we will. but when we get it back as for
the home office to make a decision on how they're going to use that power. so i have some sympathy with your description of it is not actually me that makes a decision. it will be a cabinet decision on how we actually decide on the final vote. >> final question. whatever the criteria used about the principle of discrimination you effectively divorce immigration from the trade negotiation because -- >> explained that again. >> the uncertainty of the principle is not that any of it is right and that it will not discriminate one region against another. but that in pursuing the affairs
you actually divorce in effect immigration from the labor and trade [inaudible] >> so yes and for obvious reasons i'm not going to draw. >> i want to press you on this. >> the prime minister has not made a great playing that cannot a lot to stand. as it now is. and she talked about control of the borders. so i do not think with the doubt [inaudible] for example.
[inaudible] >> you mention it was unusual in recent years have such are the meetings, you previously said -- the next question he purposely said that workers should not lose their rights as a result of brexit. is that your personal view is that the view of the government? >> that's my personal view. >> so that there be no discussion within government yet about whether -- >> i have not, and what i have
said to other members of the committee is that we're not going to get drawn into the policy of elements. it has indeed, it has implications that would -- well if you laid out nonoaud what it would do is to have a red line and leave it in so i do not propose to elaborate on the common stack. >> but is that your position of the position of the government? >> we look at the subcommittee nest businesses to give you impacts of very scenarios on their sectors, how are you going to assess that danger and the validity of that danger? >> a could be one of two things. think i was talking to -- and
what is said as we would carry out and yes some of the information will come from that. but the thing about any data if you look how calculated. >> we will carry out some of our own. the example i cited from earlier people comparing the effect of tariff. >> you said the department doesn't yet have the capacity to assess that, when do you expect to have a capacity? >> well we needed but the sequence of events is like this. we at the moment are doing the roundtables in the discussions. we'll then be asking for
submission and that will be getting the assessment so that's a little well. but if it doubled once in size and i suspect it will double again. >> will that be before or after? >> before. >> so you want to article 50 until actually have the capacity to carry out the notions that you believe. >> carry out those functions, that's right. >> and we be drawing on the competencies in the process and documentation that was produced by ministers before the referendum and the whole process was going through -- >> mustard this is a new process.
-- most of this is a new process. pretty much every department has stayed involved in it. they will do a fair amount of contributing themselves. and then it will be challenging. >> given the clear reluctance that you have to states what your negotiation position is going to be a not give detailed answers to us today or yesterday , how long do you think you consisting this position? is that the reality it will become politically impossible domestically, not just internationally and therefore might be better that the prime minister and her new -- actually have mandates to the british people before they trigger article 50? and not only general election --
[inaudible] i'm sorry, my question of the kinds of questions that people want answers to. and your job is to answer them. >> my job is to make decisions on behalf of the people. we have. we have a mandate like no other. >> we have a mandate like no other. and it is our job to deliver on that mandate. it is our job to do the best we can which means carrying out the negotiation and an intelligent way. means making the decision on the basis on the data lit which you collect, analyze and that you make a decision on the
data. not the other way around. it may be your approach to say oh, because were asking the question you have were asking the question you have to tells the answer before you worked it out. it seems to me and utterly dark idea. >> we have worked out some answers but none that you have asked. and frankly, we have got a major -- underway. evers single sector, every single department of state has a workload underway. they all need to come to an intelligent conclusion that's what drives the outcome to this process. not politically driven answers that allow you to say something else. >> i think we have established the conclusion of the committee about the level of negligence of not having this in place before the referendum continued. [inaudible] is not your responsibility to say that. >> thank you. it's good to to see you back in government mr. davis. it's very clear that the accentuation of the fact that
there is a lack of work on the possibility of post brexit, private leaders administration and cannot clearly indicate that the ball is in our court for triggering this. can i ask you, bear in mind that we have up to two years for those negotiation process, what are the delays in the article 50? >> the primary delays doing analysis necessary. i don't want to get too far into what happened before i arrived but let me say this. the be quite difficult for the government to do the level of analysis that we are undertaking. it is enormous. . .
but indeed for many companies in the city or in business in britain, and then there are there are still interest. when they can. and then to do the in their own analysis. and i will tell the committee if i run into the mind of happy to do so. but not at the moment to my concern about that. and how long it takes with an organization. but that will be where it needs to be.
>> good afternoon secretary of state. but they suspect us and that it takes time to get these things right. so can you reassure that public or take action to indicate the government is absolutely serious? >> that is in the beginning of summer. with august 14. so with the spending of the structural funds. of the signal to say we are
definitely e doing this, that is not a very cheap decision. and the second thing is time and again that this government's job is delivery. but whether or not there should be a second referendum. the prime minister said time and time again that we are leaving the european union. >> so is there a possibility that we can look as a way of these arrangements with those trade relations.
so that we cannot walk away from our responsibilities. with a series of other things. but one of the things that we can do legally that is okay to do for one example is the issue from now on to go back to the traditional british passport rather than the pink thing. [laughter] even that gesture such as that to show the british people. we are not in the business with the delivery.
and with those discussions of the united kingdom's future. so what assurances can you get you take those interest but to have huge amount of concerns the. >> but we are and i see that almost immediately. >> thank you very much. >> but for your spectacular french. -- fred to incorporate that with the power.
with those big business decisions and then with a certain period of time and with that long term assessment and with that investment after words to have that referendum. to put money into a country in a big way. that previously were concerned about this. so frankly i don't accept that premise that the use of
mix that. >> you raised those numbers actually. but that is why it has not been effective. >> what is the uh question? >> on that japanese point the simple way is to go back to the two day program with the japanese about sitters how attractive it is and will continue to me. >> but might issue here is what they are exploring.
those so that took the accounting risk added of balance sheet. from their own point of view. but with the economic system as a whole. but the impact elsewhere. but that is one of the things if we look at the evidence that comes into a. so that is the first thing and wanting the britain to join in the euro.
and to promise them relative to the european parliament. >> so to make sure we know what is given to the european parliament. to understand the implications to provide confidential information is an institutional agreement with the european parliament and the annexes of that agreement to the european parliament amongst others for confidential information
we also have been discussions and to explain of the european security and from time to time to provide and assistance. >> there will be some with an eye mechanisms of the joint defense and foreign policy matters. i presume those will be part of the pure discussion? >> what do you have in mind? >> certainly i personally am very concerned making an announcement together to move forward with the european army i see that as
a huge challenge and a threat to nato as part of your renegotiations of the other countries and so will you venture to work with them? even though they come out of the european union. >> it will be far more general than that. but the european army. but you will remember that primary concern was the pre-emption. so to be sure that problem
does not arise. >> so those other countries in europe will want to follow as part of the european army so given the size and strength of our protection and of europe as an entity that we will want to play a party in that. >> liking guess you are talking about but the simple truth is that is our strategy. >> >> i made that pledge.
>> times saree i'm meant that i made enough such pledge. >> [inaudible] >> some did and if that is the case he should have them here but through no speech of mine. >> [inaudible] >> i don't want to be rude to you that all. but this is the simple approach that i am taking to try to deliver this outcome in the national interest. not on the basis of somebody else's speech of the hard data that we are gathering right now. >> but that policy bill
but literally in the chamber and the statement and for the mutual benefit to trade with them and is an exchange for that. and to be calm explicit to their own industries and organizations. so i expect the german car maker and the french and many others. but i would be using that argument. and to expect -- to expect those concerns.
been an important part also. and how the of liaison is official and that was going on. that the issues that they started with. with those questions because there are a lot of stories of the did buteo but we are a member. there are things going on. and similarly the reviews of the public trade agreement,
>> so it goes to a central challenge with of presentation of the united kingdom. it is the opinion of this committee that the budget will lead to double or triple of the challenges. we have to get serious of the position to was stablish of the bilateral relationships that we are required to replace that. by going into your department's, but with our capabilities that belongs to the of foreign office. >> and also into were three years time the department
global basis. those relate to whether or not that mutual recognition will work to protect them. but also whether it is safe. i will not go any further with some of those main players and how we deal with each of those issues. >> but for very briefly with those american banks and it is more divided but put that to one side.
what reassurance can you give? if there is anything more to say than what you just said. >> most of this would be known any way. asking about how we design. >> but partly because they are incomplete. >> for the operational terms and '70s things we want to go much more closely. >> while we are sitting here
i have had suggestions from people so to give the demands that he described as no microtek control to have access to. july have looked at what the act actually said that the position is clear if the u.k. wants to remain part of the market will have to assess the free movement of our citizens. but his use of banc - - language i appreciate the
they like to calculate. for v. if you are expected and still use the language as this and build markets. >> so what we want to see is the best trading capacity for the manufacturing services. >> but isn't it clear that the wind is leading the european union? because it is impossible to concerns -- have that false freedom and lesbian negotiated with access to the single market wouldn't
that be better to have that clearly made a that is what we are talking about and to think otherwise of and then to go down when it is necessary. >> so let's look forward to that. >> but to put it into those terms would give you the opportunity. but going further? but bill whole argument is the government's position is
of cover-up. that is the theory and when uh crown broke and had to be resolved over. >> you don't have to set a referendum last week in nobody talked about the referendum. eudora needed election. with that mandate directly and you down need a photo of parliament so that the event to be in favor of that is done manifestation of the referendum.
center for national interest, live at 2:45 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> tonight, on the communicators, should misuse, ciber director of security, and vice president of the middle east research, disk us how i says and other extremist groups use twitter and other social media sites to radicalize,, and how other nations are trying to reduce the trend. are seeing explosion of the use of social media to recruit, particularly in america, individual to isis. they use social media like twitter, which was the platform choice for a number of years, now telegram . you see these individuals in the u.s. who are finding like- minded communities and finding them. >> youyou see these individualse
want religiosity. you want bloodlust. you want revenge. you want wacko ways of killing. it allows them to project the complete package in a way that bypasses television, bypasses regular want media. communicators" tonight at 8:00 a.m. eastern tonight at 2:00. >> the state of the european union by john klin-claudhe juncker. he called for the consideration of new military headquarters and commented on preparations for the u.k. to formally leave the bloc. this is just under an hour.
>> please take your seats. ladies in general and please take your seat. today's hearing is hereby open. the southern point on the agenda today is the state of the union. we are very happy to be able to begin in welcome. to the house today. for his speech on the state of the union. they become a reference point in the european union in politics and we will take them about the work of the past and the guidelines on the fundamental directions. into talk together to decide
this. the essential part of that democratic work of the european union and once again the second time they will be presenting this for us. the commission the use. together with the european parliament we have a little bit further towards the parliamentary process. they lead to walk hand-in-hand on this road. today we have the chance on the speech on the state of the union address. it is a very important moment in the work of the european parliament. a very historic moment. in a very important moment when it comes to the development of that two days before the summit in brussels. we have the opportunity together with the european commission to get some signs on this. it is something that has been there. you guys had worked very hard on this. we are very happy to hear your
of the european parliament. presidency of the council colleagues. one year ago in september 2015 in my speech on the state of the european union i stated that the state of the union left much to be desired. the dinner only apply to europe in our union. there was not enough union. in spite of the progress it has been made. it still applies. the european union still does not had enough of those. things have improved. but others haven't. and this has something to do with the crisis of the european union. there are too many areas in
which they can't reach it. the scope in which we go together is too soon. the national interest come to the floor. we should not misunderstand that. we cannot have it left to the interests of individuals. they cannot become that. a colorless this was the case the commission does not intend to get rid of the nationstate. we don't destroy we don't want to undermine we want to construct europe is not going
level. a drop in deficits rate. and so we don't want to see the flexibility act. we need to show intelligence in the flexibility there. so we don't break or hinder rowth. i think we also need to look into the eyes of those who are observing us from afar our friends and partners worldwide who deeply regret brexit and they are wondering whether it is the beginning of this process. allowing you here and today that we respect and at the same
time regret. we would be happy if the equest could happen as quickly as possible so we can take the specific steps which need to be taken. and so that the relations with the uk and only those can have unlimited access to the the uk and only those can have internal market. to accept that there will be ree access for that.
there cannot be other access to the supermarket. our partners constantly raise the question as to whether it is still in a position to enter in to trade agreements with the rest of the world. the trade in area we had trade agreements with hundred 40 countries worldwide. i am not a blind fanatic on his. i do believe to have trade and trade means more work. they are dependent on this. one in every seven jobs in europe depends on our experts.
$1billion more in export volume an additional 40,000 jobs in europe. and therefore i am very much behind the trade agreement with canada but the most progressive. the kind of piece that we need can be specified in the procedures and we can rule out the conservatives of which xists. in the future also in india and japan.
it is a global and legally binding agreement and it wouldn't have come into being in the absence of the european union. we drove this forward. and sometimes we also edged others to act we recall the steps to be taken we are calling on them to rectify his. basically dragging her feet under man's our international apability.
asically it goes amongst ourselves and interaction to depend on this. were not the united states of europe. which i making today and cannot be compelled in any way. the history of europe made it this way. it made us what we are. that is no reason to make things even more complicated and difficult than they are already. he requires courage but we need to speak in committed terms about europe international
arliament as well. if we protect that we want that. for all of the logic in the earings. it cannot be for any longer we have to look them straight in the eye people in europe don't ant the end between the very different institutions people expect of europe that they see clear results and the results hat are there in due time.
and effective justice the systems support economic growth in the fundamental rights. they promote and defense the rule of law everywhere in urope. it has the right to have your personal data protected. or the companies. two every mouse click. this is why they count with the commission with that rotection. in europe privacy matters. european also means.
for the same work in the same place. this is why the commission stands behind the posting workers. it's not the place that workers can be the standards of others. it is not the right way. and exact playing field. it means in europe consumers are protected by powerful companies. no matter how big or small has to do it where it makes its profits.
being european often means standing up for the steel industry. and then they subsidize the measures in place to protect from the unfair competition. you need to do more for the production in some part of the word and they take us out of work. this is why i was in china twice this year. this is also whites proposed to change the lesser duty. and on this parliament to support the commission and strengthening our defense. we would not be naive with the free traders but to be able to respond as forcefully as the united states of america. it's all part of the way of ife. i want to preserve our agricultural sector. the commission particularly when they go through difficult moments last year the sector was hit with a gun imposed by ussia.
this is why they immobilized $1 billion to have them back on their feet because i would not accept that milk is cheaper han water. in the european it also means you. the global financial crisis is the leading policy. often invisible. takes $50 billion in interest payments thinks to the central banks.
digital technology and digital communications are going into every aspect of life. all they require is access to high-speed internet. we need to be connected, our economy need it, people needed. we have to invest in that connectivity. that is why today the commission is proposing a reform for our european communication. we want to create a new leader and framework that enables investment in connectivity. businesses should be able to plan the investments in europe for the next 20 years. because if europeans invest in new networks and services, that it at least 1.3 million new jobs in the next decade. connectivity should benefit veryone.
that is why the commission is proposing a fully deployed -- across your pain union by 2025. this is the potential to create 2 million jobs in the european union. everyone will be benefiting for connectivity no matter where you live or how much you earn. so we will include all european venues in every city with free
wireless access in public life by 2020. as the world goes digital we have also to empower our access and protect. the creation is not a hobby, it is a profession. on journalists, publishers, authors to be paid fairly for their work. whether it is made and studios are living rooms, whether it is online or off-line, whether it is published by a copy machine or high-tech. the copyright rules we are proposing today that is exactly that. . empowering our european economy means investing not just in connectivity but in job creation. the 350 billion -- which has already raised 160 billion in investments in the first year of operation. thanks to the european strategic investment. and now today we propose to double the duration and to double its capacity.
e feel support and we will make sure our european investment will provide the otal of at least 500 billion to half a trillion in investments by 2020. we want to reach a 630 billion by 2022. of course with members contributing we can get there even faster. we also need to create the right environment to invest n.
european banks are in a much better state than two years ago. thanks to our joint european efforts. europe needs its banks, but the economy, almost entirely depends on banking project for financial stability. and it is good for business. that it is it is now urgent we accelerate our work on the capital. the commission is putting this on the table today. we will make our financial system by far more resilient. it will give companies to diversify access. imagine your step up and a bank refuses alone. what what now? the options are very limited. the capital market union we offer alternative. business interest, venture capital, to just mention one example our proposal of -- has been on the table of legislators for almost one year now. it has the potential to bring up to 100 billion euros of additional financing for european businesses so let us speed up its adoption. our investment plan is better than anyone expected inside europe. and now we are willing to take it to your. today we are launching an ambitious investment plan for africa which has the perp possibility to raise investments. it can go up to 88 billion. this will complement our development and look at the oot causes of immigration.
the new plant will offer lifelines for those who would otherwise be pushed to take dangerous journeys in such for a better life. it has to be done. . as much as we invest in improving conditions we also need to invest in responding to humanitarian crisis. more than anything, we need to invest in our young people. i cannot. to youth unemployment. i will not accept that the
generation y might be the first generation that could be poor than their parents. f course this is attack -- the european union can support this ffort. n their efforts. we are doing this with the european youth council that was launched three years ago. the commission in the house, the effectiveness on step up the guarantee. more than 9 million young people got a job because of the european union. we will continue -- improving the skill set of europeans in reaching out to the regions and people most in need. he european union can also
contribute to help create opportunities for young people. there are many young people in europe willing to make a meaningful contribution to society. the solidarity appears 16 times in the treaties. our european budget is a living proof that finances. and our development policy, and trong external sign of olidarity. so when it comes to managing the refugee crisis we have started to see progress. i am convinced convinced much more solidarity is needed.
also know that solidarity must be voluntary. it must come from the hearts. it cannot be forced. it cannot be imposed. i am urging the slovak presidency to which the divergences and differences between those are reluctant to allow refugees in their societies and those are convinced as i am that the fair share and relocation and resettlement is the essence. . i am asking a strong and immediate action both from greece and the european union to protect what we call in rench,language]. with our protection of these children the european union is creating historic -- . in the same spirit the
commission is proposing today to step up european solidarity cause. young people across across the european union will be able to volunteer where help is needed most. to respond to crisis situations like the refugee crisis by the recent earthquakes in italy. i want this up and running as soon as possible. and by 2020 to see to see the first 100,000 young europeans taken part. by volunteering in the solidarity cause these young people will be able to develop skills and get work and also have invaluable human xperience. . will issue the president. >> ladies and gentlemen,
president counsel to europe hat protects is in europe that defends itself both inside and outside its borders. we need, and this is a priority to do this, to counterterrorism as it of 2004 europe has suffered more than 30 terrorist attacks of 14 have happened over the past year. we have all maintained solidarity throughout our suffering a morning. we must must take a collective approach to this. we must be truthful and faithful to ourselves, to our values, to our multicultural open society. we need to to show terrace that they have no chance when they ry to attack these values.
this tolerance which is ours cannot find the faith of our safety and security and that is why the commission at the outset has given out priority to security. we have setup as a special system for the return of fighters and we are combating the financing of the terrorism. we are using the internet to combat terrorist propaganda and we are combating radicalization in prisons and elsewhere elsewhere. we still have a lot of work to do and we must know which individuals are crossing our borders. it is for this reason that we efend our borders with new
special agency. their agents increase at the border with turkey, and we have more than 100 agents in bulgaria. the member states and the institutions must work closely in order to make sure that we can set up this new agency. i would would like to see the deployment as of october with a 200 border guards and more with the border in bulgaria. we will also defend our borders n terms of those who cross our borders. we'll will be very strict as to who can cross the border for something that we are looking to implement by the end of the year. anyone coming into the european union will be registered. we'll have the date, the place and the reason as to why the
person is leaving borders. by november we will be proposing a new information system. a travel system. a travel information system which would be automated. we'll be able to determine who has the right to travel into europe and so in this way we will see who will be traveling into europe. but before that person arrives on our territory, the security of our borders also means that we have to give up priority to the exchange of information and intelligence and so we are strengthening europe to this end. because we are giving europe greater access to databases and giving them the necessary means to carry out their work. and this will have to be in line with our ambitions. europe that protects also should protect outside its
borders the world is getting bigger every day and europe is getting smaller every day demographically and economically if we wish to maintain our influence in the world it is obvious that we had to work together and it is together that we will be able to face challenges. if europe is proud of being a soft power we have to admit that this is not sufficient in a world that is evermore dangerous. let's look at the conflict in syria as an example. the consequences for europe of this conflict are immediate. where are the member states in the negotiation that tried to solve this conflict. >> frederick -- are represented
by the commission is doing a remarkable job and that is not just my opinion. but what we need is a european minister of foreign affairs. this is something that should e similar. . >> it's something that should, that will bring together the national diplomatic forces in order to weigh in an international negotiations. this is why why i am asking for us to draw up a european strategy for syria to have a seat at the negotiating table n the future of syria. europe, ladies and gentlemen should be stronger.
should take a stronger .. of view in terms of our defense. we can no longer depend on the singular power of individual member states. together we have to make sure that we protect our interest. over the past ten years we have participated in more than 30 military and civil missions carried out by the european union. but we do do not have a permanent structure. without that we are not able to work efficiently. we must have a european eadquarters. and so we should work toward a common military force and this should be an complement with nato.
more european defense doesn't mean less transatlantic solitary from an economic point of view bringing together military resources could be clearly justified we could use cooperation which is useful because the lack of cooperation is something that is costing the european union 20 - 100000000000 per year. in order to call guarantee the european union should -- we are roposing by the end of the year the european defense fund to actively stimulate research and innovation in this area.
the wilson treaty announced member states wish to do so to ake their capacity available to a permanent structure. i think it is high time to avail ourselves of this ability. . the president and the final point which i wish to touch upon has to do with our collective responsibility. i'm calling calling on all of the european union institutions and each of the member states to assume more responsibility. we need to do away with old spats which could lead to responsibility. failure. we cannot survive without working together. europe needs to be better explained.
i have asked asked of the commissioners over the coming weeks to visit national parliaments in order to discuss he european union. the commissioners have gone to national parliaments more than 350 times and i would like for them to do that more now. europe can only be built if it is understood. it has to be better explained. it can only be built with the member states not against the member states. so the commission is to be a political commission which gives rise to lots of strange ideas. but the commission needs to be there for the citizens. we need to to listen to the citizens, we need to listen to the european parliament and the member states. we do listen to our citizens and we would like to do that
more intensely. sometimes i read that the people locked themselves up in their ivory towers and don't want to listen to others. some people think that i'm not listening to others but to those who think that are highly mistaken. every single day i talked to the european citizens because this is my duty, this is everyone's duty. . as i said earlier, the ommission has withdrawn. we have reduced the number of nitiatives by 80% and we are reviewing all of the legislation and effects because
we need to focus on the areas in which europe can give us a true added value and this is the only way in which we can make europe a space of olidarity. any policy of the commission would mean that we would have to correct any technocratic errors that may have arisen. the commission has done away ith roaming charges for cell phones and that is why we have done away with roaming charges into something that happened this summer. so those are very good intentions behind doing away with the roaming charges.
it was very good in terms of the technicalities and as of next week you'll see a new draft which is improved when you travel in europe with your mobile phone you will be able to feel at home anywhere in europe. and that is thanks to these new roaming roles. been responsible means that we have to take responsibility for our actions throw citizens and that is why i would like to change the sub serve ruled that we have whereby commissioners who stand for election have to ive up their post. the commissioners should not have to do this because this is not a rule that applies elsewhere. we must encourage the ommissioners to live up to
democracy and our voting rights in europe. and as long as the european project which is celebrating 60 years next year in march, maybe a little bit older, so i have experienced all of this. i have lived it through this project. i have dedicated my entire life to this. i have done this with personal conviction and i have not hesitated. i believe in europe and the stability in the continents and work an official progress. my father believed in this as well and he knew how precious europe was and how fragile it was. he had to live for the war. he had to fight in the war against his own will and
against the will of his country. my father instilled in me these values. what are we instilling in terms of values to our children? what is the heritage, are is this a union that has forgotten its path? that has no vision for the future ladies and gentlemen, our children deserves a better, they, they deserve a europe which preserves their way of life that champions their way of life and protects it. it's high time for us as institutions of the government to all take the responsibility to build that europe and to build it together. es, i know there are certain debates in their some pollyanna optimists and then there are pessimist to counter
everything. i think europe has a mission at home and in the world. you have the pessimism which only looks at the faults and then the rosy view. between that you have the resolve, the resolve resolve of those who will not give up, those who will work in the spirit of creating something for future generations. that is the resolve of those who came before us. i'm calling on us to have resolve so that we can get over our differences. history will not remember our names, will be remembered by the force of our resolving convictions. this needs to be integrated, history will not remember us. history will remember our mistakes. and be responsible with what we
>> now we talk with a los angeles reporter about campaign financing in california's 24th district race. host: how a congressional race in santa barbara, california came one of the most expensive in the country. the reporting of javier panzar, who works for the los angeles times. think you for being with us. guest: thank you for having me. host: tell us about the two candidates. guest: he has the backing of the whole democratic establishment. justin for reed a 28-year-old. his parents all in a medical devices company in santa barbara and after graduating from ucla works for congressman ed whitfield of kentucky for a year the four moving back to
the district, and now he is making his second run for congress. he ran in 2014, but did not make it out of the primary. host: an expensive race. how much will be spent by the candidates and outside money? guest: it is 1.5 million dollars in outside spending. i expect that to go up. i don't know how much, but because santa barbara is such a cheap media market compared to los angeles in the bay area, you can see a million dollars, in before election day and both campaigns, the last filings are sitting on about $200,000 for for read and $500,000 for the opponent. host: much of that money spent on advertising. here are some of the ads now on the air.
>> when congress can't agree on the budget, they shut down the government and keep their salaries. when the great recession hit and hundreds of county workers were furloughed, he stood with them and gave up his salary as a county supervisor. >> everybody is trying to make inns meet. i thought it was important we do the same thing. i am salud carbajal and i pprove this message. >> justin fareed was born and raised right here on the central coast. he was an unstoppable running back. building a small business, he never would take no for an answer. he went to washington just long enough to realize it needed fresh ideas. choose fresh. choose fareed.
host: just eat up of many ads on the air in california fell 24th congressional istrict. that includes salud carbajal and justin fareed. joining us on the phone, javier panzar, following the story. eight different, generational approach almost between the younger republican candidate and the older democratic candidate. guest: you could not get more different candidates. justin fareed is 28 years old. his experiences a staffer for a year. and salud carbajal has been in local politics for 20 years. he is fairly well known for his fundraising apparatus. not only now, but when he was running for county supervisor. he has the backing of most of
the powerful democrats in california. nancy pelosi, lois capps, lois capps's daughter, who for a time wanted to run for her mother's seat -- she is backing him. and he has been hit for being a career politician, i guess is one way to put it, whereas justin fareed does not have much of a career in politics. he gets to come at it from i'm young, i'm a new kind of republican, and really run against the dysfunction in ongress. host: the district, north of los angeles. who does it paper? guest: it's an interesting district. for a long time because of gerrymandering, it was known as the ribbon of shame.
the district cut a thin slice from the coast down to malibu. now it goes further inland. you start at the coast with liberal cities like santa barbara and you go inland and you get more of the republican rowds. you get more farmers, more ranchers. there is a significant group in santa barbara, california. that has produced more republicans. abel maldonado came out of santa maria. he's a republican. it is an interesting area in that sense, that the democrats do have the advantage among registered voters. they have a six-point lead over republicans, and it being a presidential year, that alone should favor salud carbajal.
>> i want to welcome you to today's launch of the council on foreign relations sponsored independent report. it's entitled a sharper choice on north korea, engaging china for a stable northeast asia. today we are so pleased to have to be joined by the task force cochairs. you recognize both of them. admiral mike mullin, who is of course the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. and on my right former senator chief executive officer. we're going to ask them to start out by talking about the report. we'll spend about 30 minutes discussing it and then open it
up for questions from the members. i want to extend special thanks to all the task force members who are here. and i'm going to ask you to raise your hand or stand up. we would like to see who you are if you played any role. i'm told some of you are here this morning. don't be shy. right here in the middle. welcome. >> mike and i want to clap for you. >> i want to welcome all of the council members who are joining us from new york and anywhere else. let's get started by talking about this. i want to start by asking admiral mullein the two of you
have a lot going on in your lives. why did you care enough about what is going on in north korea? why was his urgent for you? >> thank you, judy. i, too, would like to thank the task force members and in particular if you haven't had a chance to look at the report it is dedicated to steven bos worth who was going to originally co-chair this with me but unfortunately passed away. the dedication really is to him who dedicated so much of his life trying to solve this challenge diplomatically and we are mindful of that and his contributions have been enormous over the decades. i haven't done many of these reports. this is really the first one. when i retired in 2011 i felt then and i will now that the korean peninsula is as plosive of a place that exists in the
world and it can explode rapidly and dangerously and needs to be addressed. when richard haas asked me to do this not having done much in termsz of these kinds of reports or task force since retiring i agreed to do it because it is an an enormously complex issue that many administrations tried to address. ... the near term danger that it has and the need to hope get at it peacefully but certainly with expectations that we could
be on a much more dangerous path than a peaceful resolution here. here. i thought it was that important and agreed to cochair. >> let's lunch into the report. senator, let's talk about, lay out for us in brief, how is this a departure, if it is and we know it is in some regard from current policy? what to you are the principal points here that you want the membership and the rest of the policy world to pays attention to this part of the world to take away from this report? >> i recall winston churchill once said that no matter how beautiful the strategy, occasionally you have to look at the result. looking at the result we face a grave and i think, increasing danger. when i say we come i mean japan, south korea,
american personnel in korea as well as that region of the world. yes, i mean china also. china also. china is a very important part of that region. so how does it differ? the first thing i would say is that a couple of other members of the task force are very helpful, gary in particular a bob in helping clarify exactly what the u.s. policy is right now. i think we should say up front that we have deterred major war and that is an accomplishment. that is something that has been done. but we haven't done is change the north korean calculus to continue to defy, not the united states, but the united nations. they are defined the united nations security council resolution. both on the nuclear program and on the missile programs. that intensifies. so what has changed? i think the main thing that i would emphasize here, we have four major steps and a lot of other steps in the comprehensive
and adam did a terrific job of bringing them together. but what we emphasize in the op-ed this morning that mike and i had in the washington post is that the steps have to be taken in parallel. this is not sequential. we cannot wait until the sanctions completely work and then basically go to talks. we have got to try to get talks going now. we have to increase the benefits to north korea if they basically sit down and talk in a sincere way, move towards getting rid of their nuclear weapons. stopping the missile and so far. we have to also talk to china in a very frank way. it is in china's interest in our interest. we need to take into account china's interest because china has got to be a part of this. without china it without china it is going to be very difficult to solve this peacefully. the third point i would make is
that we have to enforce the un resolution 2270. that is a powerful new resolution that the obama administration should get credit for pushing this and getting it through the un security council. it should be noted that china and russia both voted for it. it gives that the mandate, not just the right of all nations to inspect cargo coming in and out. in and out of ports, airports, ships, sore ships, sore fourth. that is an enormously important to if it is implemented. china has to be part of that. we recommended and we have a multi national effort led by the united states to equip our allies and friends throughout the region to enforce the un resolution. that can make a big difference. the poor thing i would point out is the need to increase the deterrence and defense while we are doing all of this other. mike can speak to that but there are in a of steps we are recommending that our defense department under kate undertake
with south korea and japan. these have to move together. it is not just one or the other. it is all. >> adam, as a project director let me go to write to one of the specifics and that is, that what you recommended along with the sanctions that the senators outline is in effect a lower set of conditions. north korea korea would no longer have to completely free this nuclear program before the united states would be willing to sit down and talk about the future. why was the task force recommended that? >> the task force does have a recommendation on negotiations. it's recommendation number two. the reason is that a long-term solution to the north korean problem will require a negotiated solution. unfortunately there is no way around that. the only way to denuclearization of the queen peninsula is through talk. so negotiations play a critical role. all of the other recommendation
cape two quarters north korea about the talk. the structure of the talk is important. on the one hand the task force believed very strongly that the united states should clarify the negotiating position and offered real -- to north korea to reengage in talks and come back to the table and to seek a lasting solution to the nuclear problem. we believe that a freeze on the north korean nuclear program and we outline several steps in the report that would require for it to be in place will, should be on the first item of the agenda for the talks. but on the the other hand we do believe that there are other issues that we can include in talks that are beneficial to all parties, including china china and all of the parties that were engaged in talks. this involved regional arms control and eventually discussions on how to and the
korean war. a peace agreement that will finally end the war. so all of these pieces should be part of negotiation. but what is important to recognize is the united states and the allies will never accept a nuclear north korea and it shouldn't. each step of the weight north korea does have to demonstrate that they are taking steps on denuclearization. >> you have all stress the fact that this all has to happen in tandem, and theoretically it has to be moving forward at the same time. what has to happen first? >> in addition to the simultaneous of all the steps we also try to lay out what we thought was a sequence of events. in particular it has been mentioned that it is really important for the u.s. and china to take the lead to solve this crisis. in my own personal experience,
historically involved in previous crisis on the peninsula , china has basically said that they have limits on what they can do, what they can actually get done in north korea and how much they can control the leadership there. we. we just think it is imperative that they lead in this to open the door for a peaceful solution. to me that is a relatively early test of at least the strategy that we talk about. it has got to go through china and it has to go through china as quickly as possible. while all of these other things are occurring and specifically sam talked a little about the deterrence piece, strengthening the trilateral relationship between the u.s., south koreans and the japanese, getting to a .. and one of the things report calls for is to look at the
possibility and the attack on one as an attack on all. that is much easier said than done. these are relationships that have also had their ups and downs. they're both incredibly important allies to the united states. strengthening that, looking at conventional capabilities, whether it be antisubmarine welfare, cyber commerce special operations, strengthening strengthening that relationship between the three countries as well. in addition a very strong recommendation to deploy this missile defense system which the united states and south korea have agreed to as rapidly as possible. to get to a point that should, should the north get to a point where they are actually about to cross the threshold of a being able target and nuclear ice, miniaturizing nuclear as a warhead that they could hit the united states with, we cannot
let them get to that point. so that any missile capability which support that we could actually shoot that down with the systems like this with fad being one to prevent that capability from becoming real. really, in the sense that that is a self-defense capability as opposed to something that would be an attack capability. >> is sticking with it china, what is the incentive for the chinese to be cooperative, to want to make this work when we have not seen that from them up until now? they have made it clear that they are not interested in seeing a unified korea which is part of the long range wish of the united states. it is really what you talk about here. and frankly with the missile defense system which is
something the chinese cannot find attractive. what makes you think the chinese are ready to jump on board and do something that is helpful now? >> personal, we make it very clear we are not advocating that the united states or our allies try to induce the collapse of north korea. in my own personal view if north korea does collapse at some point in the future it will be because of their internal problems. their abuse of their own citizens, the human rights problem, the economic mismanagement. that is north korea's problem in the path out of that for north korea and its citizens is the path of cooperation. in terms of china, first of all china's interest in the region is huge. stability of the korean peninsula for china is very important.
china, i think it does realize but we make it clear that they have to realize what mike just said, the united states and our allies cannot afford to see this threat continue to grow. particularly against the united states. china has to know that, as well know that, as well as our allies in japan and south korea. the third thing is, we are making it very clear that we ought to have a new dialogue with china. of course china has to be willing to do it. were not sure they will. we have to talk about what is in china's interest? what are they worried about on their borders? how can we talk about them informally about the refugee problem that might occur if there is a collapse of north korea. whether it is by any military action they take, and north koreans take, or internal. the chinese have to be worried about that. border control per they have to be worried about border control. and i think we need to sit down with china and have that dialogue about all of these issues. they have to take into account our interest and we have to take into account their interests.
the bottom line is we have to have cooperation. china china has to recognize that has their leader said, he does not intend to have chaos and war on the korean peninsula. it is going to take all of us toward that goal, that's the right goal. it's going to take operation. all of that is in my view fundamental in china's interest. it will take a new conversation. >> adam, what would you add to that? what is it that makes the members of the task force believe that china will find it in its interest to work with the united states on this? >> in some ways this is the very hard and i commend senator for bringing a start the star tension. each of the recommendation not only sharpens the choice for north korea also provides incentive for china to transition how things about north korea, to me from seeing it as a buffer against against
u.s. power in the region to see in it as a major problem for security and stability in the region. each of these steps demonstrates and the united states and menstruation should be clear about this, that until the north korea problem is resolved. the us, china relationship which is one of the most important in the world cannot progress. it will restrain the relationship. it will. it will cause tension and strain. also each of these steps demonstrate the steps that we have to take necessarily, the united states and its allies to secure themselves against north korea will strain china's interest in the region. all of them are meant to convey and help encourage china to transition how abusive north korea and to get on the right side of this issue. without a resolution of the north korea problem, as we say
very prominently, stable, prosperous northeast, prosperous northeast asia is unlikely to emerge. >> in that connection and another connections the report includes the mention of revising the number of u.s. troops on the korean peninsula. clearly a a very sensitive subject. under what circumstances could that number come down? >> we try to address that issue in all of us and how sensitive that is in terms of a tremendous amount of progress in stabilizing the region, denuclearize in the peninsula and virtually eliminated the threat so that at some point in time an aspirational point in time down the road, the possibility of looking at whether those forces would remain at that level would be part of the discussion. that gets back to what senator was talking about, which is that we try to look at how do you incentivize all of the parties
here? another way i try to look at somebody like china is how do you see this problem set from their perspective, not just our perspective. often times we try to generate solutions just from our perspective. that is just not want to work. so recognizing work. so recognizing the sensitivity with troop levels, we try to characterize in the report and characterize it that way, it is certainly a long way off but down the road that is something we should address. >> i will echo and say exactly what mike said. i will add one other feature. we make it clear in the report that the troop discussion in the position of american forces would be something the united states and south korea, and japan would discuss and agree on together as we put it forward on the table. this is not simply the united states, this is also the south koreans in japanese. >> in the category and if you look at this among other things
as terrorist and sticks. one of the sticks is recommending a role for the united nations and moving to suspend north korea's credentials at the un if it doesn't demonstrate real progress on human rights. why do you think this a be effective? >> this is unusual and i'll call in our military man here to talk about human rights because he feels very strong about this and mary beth played a huge role in this. and mike played a huge role in this. let me kick that question to mike. >> roberta is here who also had a huge impact on this aspect of it. i effort, for too long have been involved in executing policy where the discussion about human rights was put on the back row if you will. yes, we need to represent that it is a value for a country and one of the things i felt very strongly
about in this report was that we are not going to do this. and we weren't going to do it in any way, shape, or form. so the contributions of those who spent their life doing this in understanding in particular roberto who has particular expertise in north korea was hugely important. i just don't think is a country the united states can try to resolve the military aspect of this without directly approaching it on time progress to human rights in north korea because he is so appalling. and because the stuff that he and his regime and predecessors and his dad and granddad have done it's just unconscionable. we cannot look in our good conscious at this issue without making it a major part of the report and recommendation to include the recommendation to
take away the credentials from this country if they don't make progress. that is a pretty simple statement, but it is a very controversial recommendation and execution. to the degree to the degree that north korea is incentivized again and at least we have seen them sometimes react to the international perspective, not always but to the degree that that might create some kind of leverage and impact and human rights. that is why we recommended what we did. >> would and that serve to further isolate the north koreans which has been part of the problem here? >> the hope is that they'll begin to talk about human rights. the hope the hope is that they will sit down and have a discussion. the hope is they will begin to work with the united nations on human rights. that is the hope. this this business of going to the un and credentials is if nothing else works. if they don't come in good faith and if we don't make progress.
so so the report makes it very clear. we hope to make progress. if they don't, i think at some point with the family of nations the un should take action. suspension is not the same thing as termination of membership. suspension of certain rights but it is a very strong and powerful step. strangely enough the north koreans have indicated they have some sensitivity to some of these possible outcomes by the family of nations. >> if i could just add, and you ask this question before we came out here is how is our intelligence with respect to north korea. all of this is done against a backdrop of how little we understand about north korea in general and the personalities and certainly this new young leader specifically.
it has been, we are smarter than we used to be, we know more than we use to but there is still a lot we do not know. so we can speak to this what sam said is right, it is in hope because we just do not know how either he or the leadership in north korea is going to react to these kind of recommendations or possibilities. that said, without the reaction that we sort of would hope for, the recommendations really focus on increasing the pressure in the human rights area and clearly in the nuclear area to try to generate a much better outcome for the region. >> one other point that adam made was that we believe that talks are essential here. you you do not know what the north koreans are going to do until you sit down and talk to them. sometimes even then you do not know what they're going to do. but you have to have communication. we make it clear and this is
also the administration's position, i was not was not aware of that when we started this effort. but we make it clear that informal discussions between the united states and north korea can take place right now. we make it clear that there are no preconditions or to that kind of informal. when you get to the more formal talks we do think all parties need to sign up to the 2005 agreement. there are a couple of conditions, not preconditions. but getting tax going. but getting talks going is important. when jimmy carter went to north korea many years ago, i happen to read a remarkable diary diary he wrote about his conversation with the grandfather. some of the things that were discuss their were amazing in terms of the vision that carter set forth which, in many respects it was agreed to. now it did not happen, you have to be skeptical, you have to have verification all the way through this. but nevertheless, you do not
know what is on other people's mind if you never communicate with them. you have to have talks. >> in formal, and i think there is a little bit of a lack of clarity on what is the policy now. is it that informal talks could proceed without any conditions? or it has been my understanding that north korea had to to freeze its nuclear program before there could be talks. this is a change from that. >> as respect it does represent an adjustment from that but we agree that u.s. policy has not been good on this front so i went to the next administration takes office they should do a top to bottom review of the u.s. policy toward north korea. that should include preconditions for negotiation. it should be very clear with the north koreans, the chinese and other parties. precisely what we expect of them, what we are prepared to offer and what we expect to get
out of these talks. >> i just want to say one word about, we cannot take a long time to get this going. the clock is [inaudible] our side now. and that's because of the developments of the north korean program. they are are moving out very strongly with that missile. i would urge my colleagues in the united states senate, whoever is elected president to put on the front burner the confirmation of the people that have to deal with this problem. and to get discussions going in the administration and with china and hopefully with north korea. certainly with our allies of japan and south korea. at the very beginning of the next ministration per. that needs to be on the front burner. >> before i turn to the members for question, is it clear right now what the response would be if the north were to take further -- we have seen test after test. if there there were to be a provocative action on
the part of the north korea that us, japan, south korea deemed a threatening, and i realize it has to deal with what direction the missile goes, but is it clear what the u.s. response would be? would there be a military response? what would it take to get a military response? >> well i am right in the speculation world which i don't really like to do. we spend a lot of time on this and we certainly have capability to respond. it covers a vast array of potential options and so it would really depend on what he did. merely attacking and south korea or attacking japan, hitting them with system, with some get a missile system we would rapidly destabilize the area. it's hard for me to believe in
i'm no longer in fall but it's hard for me to believe there would not be some kind of severe response. we have worked with our allies in the region with respect to that for a long time now. what we don't know about the guy , you just don't know what he's going to do. you don't know know what drives him. so the likelihood that something like that could happen is certainly out there. >> we are in the realm of speculation. what i understand you to say's there would there would not be a preemptive move. >> no, i actually would not say that at all. i would think that again in the array of options that certainly is one that is there. >> okay, we are going to turn to membership for questions. i'm told told to remind you that it is on the record, we would ask
that you wait for a microphone. there are couple of out there that they will bring to. speak directly into the mic, stand up and tell us your name, your affiliation, limit yourself to one question. let's start right over here with this gentleman. >> if you could stand up. >> okay you don't have to stand up is fine. we know who you are. >> my memory on this maybe hazy, but i was with bill perry at the time of the earliest crises and the old man, the grandfather i guess you could say somehow or another at the time as the cold war was ending made it possible for some of their records to be made available to us. one of the things that was a surprise to those of us who saw those records was that it took about one year him to persuade
the russian and chinese leaders to get into this. they are very much a frayed they want to go to war with america again. so the record show. so that was certainly an opening pressure back up and say was opinion then that we simply had to send a person of great stature over there. you have to keep in mind maintaining face, stature, we were important in the world. so if you're so if you're going to send somebody don't send assistant secretary, however able he may be. send somebody who has the ability but also the recognition stature in the world. so it happened that i knew at the time to people who had been
asked by him to come over. one was secretary general of the un, the egyptian, now passed away. and the other was president carter. my suggestion was nine presidents as i did, i thought none of them would like to have that done. you don't want to be undercut by somebody who seems to have more knowledge in the subject than you do. if anybody's going to do it you will do it. well, that is not the way is going to work in it doesn't usually work that we very often. so i say, why not -- why not just say we are not inviting anybody to go but nobody will stand in the way.
if somebody of us stature they can step aside and let them come. >> so your point is someone of a high standing needs to be needs to go. >> and carter do going get an agreement. >> let's let's ask if what about that. how high does the representative of the united states need to be involved in the negotiation? does it need to be the president himself? can it be. >> i think it has to be the by the president. any suggestion that he makes based on his contribution to humanity i would take seriously and i would hope the president, whoever that will be will take that's her sleep and i think that's a presidential call. >> i just sat and we alluded to this, this regime has a pretty robust history and the report lays out the cycle that we have all been in for many years,
decades now. there simply are meant to presented the report a sense of urgency and a very specific statement that the next president, whatever he or she may be is going to get tested very early with this capability. part of the idea of this was to propose at least a framework that might be used as a new and ministration will take over. were not the only ones in town doing it by the way. >> no hands on this side of the room. >> i'm on affiliated but a humble assistant secretary of state -- but i agree with a higher level of representative. i asked my question with a disadvantage of not having read the report. does the report address his
concept of the deterrent and whether he gets it? thinking specifically of the narrow that's worrisome and south korea when he going talk to them about him using his nuclear umbrella now his deterrent to take conventional action with impunity and this has led to debate about whether there should be a south korean nuclear weapon or reintroduction of u.s. nuclear weapons. you you address that in the report? >> i would say that this is the core of recommendation which is the the suggestion. as the missile capabilities develop he may believe, mistakenly that he is able to aggress set some conventional and conventional levels and cover that with his nuclear arms. our recommendation are explicitly designed to dissuade him of that pulse impression. we propose, as mentioned, new abilities in a submarine warfare, counterforce operations
activities and the mantra of the 20500 women of u.s. forces command in korea and they need to be ready to fight. that is absolutely true. that might require what we send the report not only defense reaction but proactive action. ma also required strikes and to create itself if we are aggress to get with sufficient magnitude. that may be required to dissuade them of this notion. at some parts recognize that we do not enjoy condition of mutual destruction with kim jong-un own and we will not consent to that arrangement. >> we have a question from new york. would you stand up and tell us your name and affiliation. >> i'm herbert with a chinese society. with when the united states has been confronted with this in the
past, we negotiated our way out of it, first of all we were free to negotiate very early on when faced with it which has not been the case here because of opposition within administrations and with the congress. we won after, but serious serious threats in argentina, brazil, we talked them out of it we managed to get south africans to stop. we then had israel in, india, india, pakistan, iran and at every case negotiations achieved a lessening of the threat. now when it comes to north korea, we have tried as the
senator knows to do some serious negotiations, negotiations have failed most of the time because north koreans are failed to fulfill at least twice have failed because we did not fulfill. so this. so this is a negotiating situation. a negotiated situation, what are our minimum criteria? well, it is not, with your hands up and agree to get rid of your nuclear weapons manufacturing capability. that is not initial negotiated situation. you have to start with no advance criteria and then you have to look at what it is the north koreans are after. they are paranoid, remember we invaded north korea when we were defending south korea. there are paranoid. we can get rid of this absurd military exercises with the obviously threatened them. >> did you have a question you wanted to tack on to that. >> yes, we can start by recognizing them as a country offering to send an ambassador in there, maybe mr. trump after the election and get started dealing with them as a serious country.
not simply as a threat. thank you. >> do you want to comment on that? >> while we make it clear that negotiation with north korea's one of our top goals. i have said said this morning communication is enormously important. we also made it clear in the report that we recommend that we have informal discussions with them. we do believe that you cannot sit down and negotiate with the men while they are continuing to test nuclear weapons and missiles. that would have to have a freeze at some point. that on be the aim of the negotiation but we can sit down and start talking to them if they basically make it clear they will sign a principle like all the other players will have to of the 2005 framework which they agree to wants. and then. and then we can discuss all of these things. we make it clear in the report that we are willing to talk about forced dispositions. i said that this morning. we are willing to talk about exercises. that's in the report.
we're willing to talk about conventional arms control. that's recommendation in the report. i think we all have to remember that the north koreans have a huge threat against our ally, south korea and the city of seoul before they ever had a nuclear program. it was a severe threat on the conventional side. all of those things can be put on the table it should be put on the table but you have to get to the table first. you have to get to the table with some hope of achieving a freeze on some of these very dangerous developments. >> we have a question over here. the gentleman. >> it good money. thank you for the invitation. >> jj green, wto p radio. there are those who think north korea already has achieved miniaturization of a weapon. we see they continue to test delivery systems. while the concern about the
possibility of a deployment of a nuclear weapon on top of a miss lesson point is a great concern, i wonder what your thoughts are about the test phase which is if they do have a miniaturized weapon, when they get to the point where they start testing because that is a huge risk. anything could go wrong as with something that they have already tested and deployed later. that is a lot closer to us now than them perfecting something and launching it later. i wonder what the panel thinks about where we are now in that process and what your thoughts would be on preparing for the possibility and perhaps an idea on what to do? >> thank you. >> actually i have looked looked at north korea's almost not having a test phase in terms of
the way they have developed their systems typically is a basically operational. they're very content with putting the system out there, firing it and having it fail but learning each time. they can see just as we have observed the progress that they have made. i would agree, although i do not know that certainly they are making progress with respect to miniaturization. the submarine launch recently are indicative of progress there as well. all of that is what greatly motivated the task force to focus on the urgency with which this is required to be addressed and the likelihood in the very near future that he is going to have this capability. he will not go through test phase. from my perspective i would treat it all is operational right now. i'm be able to address it from a threat perspective as he continues to go through these tests. they can be, they are and they can be very threatening. >> okay the front row.
>> i am in the naval postgraduate school. i'm an anthropologist by training. i look at this from a human standpoint. one of the changes i have observed, i have observed, i came to the pentagon 40 years ago. when the admiral when i think was a lieutenant. [laughter] , i met him at the naval academy. >> okay kaman asked the question. >> what i am struck by is a slow change of language in the defense department where both the vice president of the secretary of defense, last spring is the word relationship. and i think this question of trying to build relationships rather than going in insane we have got all of the strength, how are you going to deal with it, it is a real shift if we are
going to move in recognizing how important relationships are. the question i would have is, how, how do you start putting that in military education so you do not have this sense that if you are in the military you fight and if you're in the state department you try to work it out. >> that's a good question. >> she knew you. >> i actually with a survey from my perspective what i have observed and again i'm a few years removed but in my time particularly as a senior officer there is a number of people in the military, the pentagon, working on the relationship aspect of this. the strong preference for the military is we would rather not fight, we certainly can but our preference would be to have a
peaceful outcome to be led by astute policy and doctrine and even politics so that we do not get to the point where we have to use the weapons. i think the military certainly in the last several decades have this move to -- that that it's moved away from the ability to fight but the importance of having it. we are in a much different place and we were a few years ago and this is a great example. i believe the most important relationship in the 21st century is the one between u.s. and china. driven principally by the fact that there the two biggest economies in the world. we are going to have to figure out how to make this work. if this region destabilizes, our economies go bad very quickly. it has four of the five largest economies in the world in this region. that is compelling, motivation
to try to get this right. and so part of this is our relationship with china which is enormously complex. you cannot just pull on peace out and say do this. that is why think what senator said earlier so important. we have to understand this from the chinese perspective. what other priorities and incentives. what are they worried about, in addition to what we historically thought they were worried about. that said, we cannot get to a point with this young leader puts a nuclear weapon on top of a missile and puts the united states and our people under a stranglehold. that is a line in in the sand that cannot be crossed. >> the next question. and we invite task force members to join in the questions and comments if you want. let's go to the back of the room. >> and i had one thing? to that other point that was
just me. mike mullen has said over and over again that the most important security challenge america faces is our economy. and our fiscal problem. the main that is a military leader say that. bob gates said at least on two occasions that he would take money out of the defense budget to beef up the state department if he had the ability to do it. i don't think the type of military wanted to fight and the state department wanting to make a deal, come i don't think that's correct on either count. that is, perception, i think think that is wrong. >> okay question .. of the room. >> can we stand up so we can see you. >> i'm rachel with congressional quarterly. mr. malik, when when he talk about a potential preemptive military strike, would that be envisioned as a strike sun north
korea's launch sites recognizing that it is now developing mobile missiles, or with these be test that or strikes you alluded to earlier to destroy missiles launched in the sky? if that is the case or you talk about developing new types of missile-defense capabilities beyond bad? -- tha de. >> really from a self-defense perspective meaning if we believe that they're very close to develop in this capability which can threaten us, it is important for us to develop the capability to defend herself. which could theoretically take out launch capabilities on the launchpad or take them out once they are launched. certainly the capabilities we
have deployed in the region on our u.s. navy ships are part of that as well as the japanese self-defense force. the maritime self-defense force. so we also we also urge the continuing evolution of those regional self-defense capabilities to neutralize that. but but it is to prevent that threat from actually being effective either before it is lost or after. we are clear in the report that certainly and adam said this earlier, it could include attacks in north korea. >> okay there is a hand here at the second table. >> gilbert. my question is there has not been a single word mentioned about russia and there has been no mention of china with its weak implementation of the marc.
what, if russia and china are not at minimal to these actions, what besides defense and deterrence is intended to make it clear to them that the u.s. takes this situation very seriously? rather further thinks expected? >> the un resolution that we have alluded to and that is one of the pillars of our report in terms of enforcing it strictly was voted on and four by russia and china. we mention russia throughout the report. it there part of the five party talks that they recommend. russia would be part of the six party talks of north korea joints. we have made it clear that russia has to be part of this. it is clear that is the feeling that the panel. i don't think think anybody has questions
about that. >> we also say a word about u.s. sanctions policy. it is often said that the policy ought to be integrated into the broader levers of the american power. sanctions alone are not sufficient to solve the problem. but when we look at the contribution to the test were some sections it was very clear that enforcement of 2270 strictly which china has signed on to should be a priority. we hope china will join with us in that. if they do not, the standing regional mechanism that can enforce these what we are obliged to do under un obligation is important. there are also other pillars to u.s. sanctions policy. for example this is an area where u.s. and
chinese interests overlap. in shutting down north korea's illicit network of illegal and destabilizing activity that happens in china and happens in southeast asia and to confront their allies in the region. these are areas where we should devote considerable attention to try to get china on the right side of it. lastly, if after these few steps we need to be prepared to reporters put in place new u.s. unilateral sanctions. hopefully in concert concert with our allies. if necessary either steps the united states should take. so they do not face a strict sanctions as i rented. that's not acceptable. we really do need to be able to ratchet up pressure from north korea in order to course them back to negotiation. >> i would act quickly that if you have been in involved in sanctions you know how hard it is and if you haven't you think it's simple. i mean it's a good example of the whole financial sanction or which we thought we
knew something about in 2006 and seven, and we are at a level now that we cannot even have imagined back then. the same is true with the 2270 sanctions. 270 sanctions. these are enormously complex. their countries in the world addressing the report you are ignoring the sanctions. but the physical aspect of said should be keeping this material out are from flowing out of a country like north korea particularly on the chinese border were china has not been as active as we would like them to be in enforcement of the sanctions, even though they signed up for them when the un voted on them. >> back against the wall, the gentleman that had his hand up for a while. >> the question is not about the council but by my count this as
either the fourth or fifth study group the council has undertaken related to north korea over a number of years. obviously this is a problem that alludes easy solution. my query is this and i want you to connect the dots if you can. it's been alluded that the goal is not a change of regime. what i think about what an essence the study group is urging north korea to do, the only way i can conceive of this is either the end of the regime as we know it, or alternatively a transformation in the internal structure of the regime and leadership of the regime that is almost on a match double in the context of a dynasty now 70 year standing. is that appropriate therefore that the ultimate outcome here would presume the end of north korea as we know it? >> thank you for that question. i just mentioned that when i was asked to start this project the first book i picked up was -- to
no exit. you also mention there have been previous task force reports. many. many of which have done some serious work. but, i want to reemphasize the flexibility in the consideration a dedication of our task force group. they were remarkably engaged, remarkably unified and the need for a progressive and series report. we think this is an important case study for how you as policy north korea should be made. with respect to regime change, the position of the report is that we do not take steps that intentionally cause the collapse of the regime which is most likely to occur for internal reasons. that having been said, if this new ultimatum and new proposal is not sufficient to say if they don't make progress on the
steps, the next presidential administration is going to have to take a serious look at that. we will have to take a new look at policy review and that includes questions that you undermine the viability of the regime. it is not permissible to allow a north korean regime to exist that can threaten the continental united states with a ballistic nuclear missile. >> that necessarily would entail military force, wouldn't it? >> so that is part of the toolkit but there is also for example persistent concern that new sanctions could undermine the economic viability of the regime and lead to collapse. one thing we mentioned in the report is the north korean economy is diversified. there is marketization cropping up in various areas both in illicit and illicit markets that are increasing the resiliency of the regime to sanctions pressure
and forcing them to have or allowing them ways to circumvent as a sanctions regime. so i think it's important to recognize that as the regime has adapted the sanctions regime has to adapt as well. that will have to result in new pressure and new relationships. >> i have one point. we get into the point of implication of the question of having to use military force and regime change in that sort of thing. it is very clear the report that that is the last resort, as mike said we're not going to sit here and see a threat develop against the united states that puts our own people in danger and put our allies in danger. that's a last resort and if we get to that point this strategy has failed. the china strategy has failed to and it goes against what the leader of china said he was not going to permit to happen.
it goes against the south korea adds that policy would fail. it goes against the interest of japan so that would fail. and for goodness sakes a war is going to be devastating to north korea so that would fail. so don't think this on to become a front burn off option. this is a last resort, it's devastating with the huge number of flies lost. we have to understand that. we have to understand the risk but north korea has to understand the biggest risk is to north korea. >> the other thing i would add us maybe it is a modern phenomenon because throughout history certainly regimes have changed. the regime change has not been working that well lately. so i'm a little sensitive, i think were a little sensitive to quote, unquote advocating for that even though there are certainly, and it is in the report some discussion about what could be from a common
sense standpoint would logically get you a point where you would have a transformation in the regime. he has executed more people, he has conducted more missile and weapons test in five years than his father did and 18. you don't know what is going on in his head but the action certainly start to paint a strategy that is pretty distractive to the region and potentially by his own regime by our perspective, maybe maybe not by his. >> and lastly i would commence you the additional views in the back of the report which we do feel strength in the report. for example others do discuss that consideration and death. and i would encourage you to take a look at those. >> last question in the front row. >> hello, thank you. i work on china and nuclear
issues in the security bellows. even though much china expert i have a question talks. it seems from the discussion that there is a consensus consensus in the discussion that an increased pressure would lead back to the negotiating table. i just spent an embarrassing large proportion of my adult life working on dissertation on this precise question of how to get enemies to talk to each other during complex. the bottom line is the united states seems to think that escalating will get the other side to the table but it undermines efforts. the other side is worried about giving in under the got a course and them look weak and they're worried about creating for the coercion in the future. my question is given that there's a consensus i'm curious to know on the discussion, were there any voices that talked about perhaps how the increased pressure could reduce the
probability that north korea would be willing to talk to the united states? or was there a general consensus that the strategy would work? >> an easy last question. >> we thought that this would work in a very difficult problem. it's enormously complex. members of the task force who have negotiated in the clinton administration, negotiated the issue in the bush administration and negotiated in the obama administration. it just speaks to the difficulty. what is changing is the technological development if you will of the system which now very directly is coming into the horizon of threatening u.s. citizens. literally the continental united states. we just cannot see ourselves getting to accepting that in any way, shape or form. and maybe that changes the view of how this should be
"washington journal" live this morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. join the discussion. >> today defense secretary ashton carter and former defense secretary william perry on the defense department's use on the latest technology. live at 1:30 p.m. eastern on -span-3. speakers include president obama founding museum directer first lady michelle obama former president george w. bush and mrs. laura bush, u.s. supreme court justice john roberts, john lewis. watch the opening ceremony for the african museum of history
i think, you know, of the donald trump thing, you know, his first reaction would be, what happened to the idea of public service? why are we having some guy who says his great qualification is that he was a businessman? john quincy adams came from a world that revered public service. he was very close to the founding of the republic. and he felt himself, if you had asked him why were you qualified to be president? and he would have said because i have served the republic selflessly. and that was true. but since i was a young man, he'd been a diplomat, he'd been a congressman, he'd been secretary of state and his own sense of service, of sacrifice, even of heroism all had to do with the idea, i'm here for the republic. that is what i'm -- that is my purpose. and i think he would be sort of saddened and sic