included in a bill that would come out of the house? thank you. >> i've got one page to go but we know the senate product won't be conferenced answers to mention of that are even remotely, phraseology are conceptually at a macro level in one case we've gotten from the house. the political odds are probably not -- we do know that the house approach to this in engagement with offices is going to be a fraction of available in the senate approach. the senate approach, rough estimate would not reach all, would rather reached eight of the olympic the house approach may be more like four to five. that remains to be seen. i want to say because of what the congressional solution to what to do for those parents have been removed who are in other countries, parents to children, there is a new movement.

i think the parents that have been removed, and the parents who remain behind, are not equally participatory in political process as the young people, whether they be citizens or dreamers, so there's a dreamer mom. i think the voice and the health conditions of the young people left behind will be filled in by the clinical actions of the mothers and fathers. so there's many ways to study this. i don't think it's purely resolve congressional action but it may not be but there's other ways to look at i it creatively and followed their lives and their self-help. i think is one place to start. >> i think it's going to have to be the last word. we are short speech if i could ask for your comment in a letter from the congressional hispanic caucus which is just a recommendation, they specifically include that, to allow for family members outside of the u.s. to reunite. it's in the letter. >> i want to say thank you to

all of the panelists here tonight. this is been a very educational evening for me personally, and i hope it's been that way for all of you. thank you very much for coming and for being such a good audience. [applause] >> the u.n. security council is holding a meeting today to discuss the situation in ukraine, coming as ukraine's military as well as pro-russian forces have descended on the country's eastern region to u.s. officials are telling "the associated press" today that the u.s. is working on a package of nonlethal aid for ukraine that could include medical supplies and clothing but would stop short of providing body armor and other military stuck with the. live coverage coming up at 4 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> coming up tonight on c-span2, it's booktv in prime time with a focus on navy seals.

>> booktv all this week in prime time here on c-span2. >> tonight on c-span we'll bring you speeches and discussions from the u.s. annual women in the world summit including a pop singer's leading protests in ukraine. a conversation with other clinton and the first in stores of bombings and chemical attacks in syria. here's a preview. >> that day we were placed, me and my cousin were preparing some kind of activities for the kids. we were working with them.

we heard on the internet that chemical attacks hit the center, and then after an hour we heard that a similar attack hit my town. we were hearing the missiles, you know, the bombing all the night. the bombing this night is different from any other night before. it's carrying gases, sarin gases. so after half an hour we start feeling dizzy. we start, our noses, our eyes were running, so we recognized that there's something different in the air. and we rushed to the other room and we wake of all of the family members and the kids. we tried to help them, to put some kind of, with scars on

their noses. and then we decided -- >> were your throats burning, eyes burning at this point? >> yeah, our noses were running. we couldn't see well. we find some difficulties in breathing. but we didn't imagine that it would be worse. and we decided to go to the hospital to help. because we used to be nurses at that hospital. so we rushed to the hospital and tried to help. on our way, usually took five minutes to get there, but because of heav of the heavy bod shelling, it took us 20 minutes. i remember when we arrived at that neighborhood, i saw dozens of corpses, women and men and children. i just remember myself screening

and yelling out and saying oh, god. i was so shocked. i didn't imagine to see that view. >> be sure to watch all of our coverage from this years women in the world summit starting tonight at eight eastern on c-span. >> up next, look at the upcoming iraqi elections taking place on april 30 and how sectarian divisions and security concerns may impact the election's outcome and what the results could mean for u.s.-iraq relations. the johns hopkins school of advanced international studies hosted this event. it's about 90 minutes. >> thank you. i'll just give some brief introductory marks and then we moved to our panelists. iraq will have its, depending on how you count, third election coming up at the end of this

month on the 30th. this will be an interesting event, certain iraqi is at a crisis point, a transition point, or is on a downward spiral depending on who you talk to. but certainly this comes at an important time for iraq we can all agree about that. it will be interesting come interesting data we get from this election, about the rest of strength of the blocks, but with the future of iraq might hold, about relations between the sunni and shia, about relations between the arabs and the kurds, and about if there's any possibility of breaking out at the traditional politics that have helped iraq in the fall since the american invasion of 2003, is there a future for non-islamist-based parties within the shia, or parties other than traditional on the sunni side, and other than that kdp and the puk up north is there a future for reform parties in the kurdish areas? all these questions will be on

the table. and with that we will turn to operate only. -- ocwen ali. >> thank you. thank you very much, doug. it's a pleasure and honor to be with you all today. and very delighted to be with judith yaphe, one of the experts on iraq and carolyn, thank you for organize it does. i do want to encourage you as an iraqi elections are approaching, they happened for 30 this month. [inaudible] we're writing a report on the elections and i am the one writing the report. i would ask you to go to our website at understanding war.org to read the report and other material that we produce not only on about but also on syria. and other areas for today's discussion and the next 10, 15 minutes i want to discuss three

broad ideas. the first one is whether elections mean for the country and what did they name for the political groups and for the prime minister himself, and then i won't go too much details but the stuff political dynamic as well among the political parties. how are they performing, why are they performing this way, and why are -- certain alliances as opposed to other alliances. finally, just provide you with some, not necessary predictions, but possible outcomes that will take place after the election and what do they mean, what was the mean for the future of the country. doug is correct. these elections are an important election for iraq. they not only come as the first national elections to take place after those u.s. forces in december of 2011, but they are also an indicator of the

political system, the strength of the particle system, the health of the political system. iraq is very experienced with elections, depending on how you count. you have had a multiple national elections and provincial elections. and for others, there have always been surprises. they have always produced new dynamic, and will talk about one of those dynamics very soon. that's why it's important to look at them but there's a lot of discussion about the shape of the government at the moment. many critics of the shape of the government, said it's a national unity government and cannot produce a lot or have productive government. so these elections, for example, will be at test for that system of government. is iraq headed to national unity government in which the iraqis are all part of the government?

or are you going to have what's called a majority government in which one group is much more dominant and is able to form the government? first point is this is about the health of the political system. the second one, these elections are also referendum on prime minister maliki. people have forgotten but only four days ago, five days ago it was the anniversary of the fall of saddam hussein to the 11th anniversary. and even in iraq it's not a widely discussed issue, but throughout those 11 is prime is a maliki has been in office for eight years. and throughout those eight years he has had long record of governance and as a result it does have critics and he has supporters. for his critics, prime minister maliki has the power. he has marginalized the iraqi

parliament which is the legislative branch of government, and he has also ensured that his political party is much more dominant political party. and for his appointment in particular, that's not a good sign for the iraqi political system. and is not a good indicator about the election of where iraq is headed politically. even for the iraqis, prime minister maliki has been there for eight years now. the and many advancements in iraq throughout those eight years but they've also challenges. last year, the escalation of violence, and many people to attribute some of that escalation to prime minister maliki's governance style, or even his governing tendencies. so it is, these elections are an important referendum for prime

minister maliki. i would extend even beyond the big it's only about prime minister maliki but also about the other political figures, the speaker of the parliament. he has been working to cement himself as the leader, political leader. city elections are also in referendum about him. so with that in mind there's a large third point about why the significance of these elections, which is these elections to take place as the country is undergoing a struggle between the state and the iraqi government and the islamic state in iraq, isis. isis, that's what i encourage you to go visit our website. we have been observing a lot of activities by isis to discourage iraqis from participating in the

elections. and in a lot of cases, even using violence to discourage iraqis from participating in the elections. that's why these elections are much more different than the 2010th election because those elections isis was not significant threat to the process. now it is, and it's one of those big questions at the moment, 16 days or not, what will be the impact of isis on the electoral process itself. and i would say that impact will not be limited to the iraqi shia but also extended to the iraqi sunnis in particular because that's the committee that isis is attending to discourage from voting in the election. that's the first part of the discussion. and for my presentation to the second part has to do with

illegal dynamics themselves. for those of you who don't follow iraqi politics, i just have one thing to say and that should be your major take away. it's a fast changing environment. what is the case today will not be the case tomorrow. that's for certain. and these elections and the run up to the elections, we have seen similar indications of that dynamic. so, for example, the 2010 election, because elections are held every four years, you have a unified iraqi shiite alliance. all the political parties convened and they said we are going to run in the election. except for prime minister maliki in those elections. that alliance was called the national alliance because we do have 2% a unified political front when the time matters and elections is moment at the. these elections, you don't have

a plan shiite alliance. you to have the iraqi national alliance. what has happened is the complete opposite. you have all the iraqi shiite political groups competing on their own. they want to set their own power. they don't want to be wedded to one alliance or one personality. that's a major development, and it will show some effect on the election. you have a similar dynamic. you don't have a unified iraqi sunni group in each group is led by personality and it's seeking to prove itself on the streets and prove itself as an independent power. and that will have an impact on the postelection period. the most interesting dynamic

that we've seen with regard to the political parties is the iraqi kurdish political party. the iraq parties political parties normally before elections when they formed coalition, they compete under an umbrella alliance. because for them, demonstrate unity with regard to relation to baghdad is imperative. and always takes precedent to in internal dynamics. these elections, the two major political parties that doug mentioned, the puk and the kdp have decided to run separately and compete against each other. starting inside iraqi kurdistan and also extending to other provinces significant for the iraqi kurds like kirkuk which is very dear and strategically very important for the iraqi kurds. these different alliances, this

new competition between the puk and the kdp is also party differences, the absence of the iraqi president a lead of the puk, but fo for the iraqi kurdst to complete a different dynamic. there is a concern even among the iraqi kurdish parties by competing separately you will waste iraqi kurdish votes in the election as the country of the clinical system is essentially working to reinvent itself after 11 years of authoritarian system. with all of these issues in mind, you might get the impression that after the election, all of these groups will continue to work against each other, or at least not ally and form the government together. it is very likely that after the election those groups, will

represent a unified front. because as will come together and negotiate. that's one likelihood. the of the likelihood is that will not happen because if the result will indicate that one group is stronger, that group will not necessarily work for an alliance to go with the government. so you have predilection and then postelection spirit. now, let me quickly touch on the last part of my presentation. and it has to do with the postelection period. any election, even here in the united states, the postelection period is always much more critical. it's much more significant, and you can have developments that will override and even reverse the gains that you have during the election.

but first of all it would be very important to have a clean election state. in other words, free and fair election. if that's not the case you might have rejection, rejection of the results. for iraq, if any political group decided to reject the results, the ramificatramificat ions woulwevery safe because you do e the isis. isis, the group waiting in the wings essentially and telling the iraqi sunnis that electoral process is not your means to fulfill your objective. you have to resort to violence. so free and fair elections will be important. acceptance of the results of course will also be a crucial part. the second important part is, and it's one of the big questions, will there be a peaceful transfer of power.

prime minister maliki, there is a cloud hanging over that question, whether if he loses, and he doesn't do very well, will he be in a position to easily transfer power and not complicate the post elections environment? for prime minister maliki, these elections are much more significant than previous elections, in which he was, and his group, were able to easily transfer power. one significant question, and this will be important toward because the possible violence scenarios that will result. the turnout in the iraqi elections. iraqi elections have always been producing high turnout and that's always been an encouraging sign. because that means people do believe in the political process. for these elections the iraqi sunnis in particular are not,

doesn't, the prospects for higher turnout did not look very good at the moment. as we examine, and this is one of the many elections that iraq has had throughout the years, last year they were provincial elections, local elections, and the turnout was not very high. and if it continues to be the case for the 2014 election, you would consider the possibility of violence to be very high. so bottom line for me is that iraqi elections always have positive and negative sides, and these elections have them as well. but these elections are much more political for the direction of the company -- the country, and the future of iraq as a nation. so with that, ladies and gentlemen, i look forward to

your questions. [applause] >> thank you very much. let's go straight to judith yaphe. >> well, and thank you all for coming. thank you, doug. thank you, sais, and the iraqi foundation for hosting us. it's great to be here. i am not an iraqi, clearly, but it's what i've done most of my life. i learnt an awful lot from ahmed's description, because it is hard to put together what is happening. it is a different kind of experience and we seen before. the iraqis have had free and their elections. and it is hard to predict. now, my job is supposedly to explain what the u.s. policy is

going to be. well, first of all let me tell you, there's nothing new. if you follow this before, don't expect me to make any dramatic announcements. what i would like to do is to talk just a little bit about the consistencies in the policy background. i put together a couple of scenarios which i'v i have since come to understand my scenario since -- i didn't before. what could go wrong? as someone who was an intelligence officer for at least 20 years, i've always learned to ask that question in the end. great, i've given you this marvelous analysis, now what could go wrong? let me start with this. imagine your president obama. you're awake at 6:00 in the morning with overnight develop its scotland has reportedly going to secede from united kingdom. the alliance, our strongest ally threatening our nuclear defense shield, the russians are about to occupy the rest of ukraine. north korea is conducted and a

nuclear test and oh, yes, iraqi elected a new parliament yesterday, a free and for election according to international observers. that's the good news. bad this is the new partnerships has publicly he will not sign a status of forces agreement but expects used troops to arrive within one week to join iraqi forces in the war on terrorism. and please, send help quickly. by the way, iraq will host the world cup in 2016. [laughter] why not give qatar can do it. recently doug and i had opportunity to go to baghdad is but don't laugh, for a counterterrorism conference. when i got back i was asked by somebody, in a word how were things in baghdad? good, i said. good? my friend said one word, i would like, okay. keywords. not good. how would i know that? you're right, i probably wouldn't have it was so quiet.

security was everywhere. multiple checkpoints every three feet practically come especially around the zone to get around. and nothing was said in the two and half days of the conference or, i was there about nine days, well, things are set privately but you would have them there was a terrorist war going on, that there probably have been already fighting around fallujah and in anbar. not a word was said but if you'd asked me after this conference what their strategy is, i wouldn't have known. i didn't know there'd been a huge terrorist incident, a bombing, intelligent indo from, say many now saying are you safe? are you all right? are you hurt? what she thought about? that been a big bomb and i asked the person was running the conference, and often, this is it to? oh, yes. it's okay.

as i said, what can i tell you that you don't know or get already? first of all, u.s.-iraqi relations have had their ups and downs. they been mostly down, let's face it. if you look at the past week about his for his welcome go back to nixon or reagan or whatever. we made so many mistakes about iraq. basically because we just didn't know what was going on there. did you know al baker became a president in the 1968 or 1963 -- names and who are these people? what other backgrounds? how little we knew about the country, its leaves come its revolution. or the conditions under which iraqis have survived, and i would add, how they might choose their leaders. a lot of ministries here which is what makes iraq so exciting to a permanent job by the way for those of us who love to

follow it. i would say this, however, second point, there are consistencies obviously in policy towards, not just iraq. you have to compare our approach to iraq to all these other crises that are going on. can you remember a time when the region was in such turmoil totally, arab spring's are still going, aftermath and the ending is still going on. syria, what do we do about syria policy? what are we doing about my count, what are the russians going to do in their latest effort with ukraine? what of the going to do about a lot of these different issues? north korea exploded. there's a lot going on under the president's plate. is iraq the first thing that attracts his attention in the morning? no. that's good news in a way. good news and badges. many of us would like it to be. we certainly were that it has fallen off the table. i don't think that's quite true

but certainly it isn't as prominent as it once was and it's not as prominent as they would like it to be. i mean i would like to be prominent. i think it's important because i think that as syria and iraq ago, we are going, we would be in really bad shape. but in terms of this, remember that we don't have a great track record. reagan and many of the other presidents did what they did in policy against iraq to help iraq, against iran, to help iran, for reasons that sometimes have very little to do with iraq or iran and to everything to do with u.s. interests or concerns, what ever. ..

it reflects on a lot of the difficulties we continue to have in our image there. so what do we have? let me give you some scenarios. what does all this say about iraq and the u.s.? the thing is, we have a triangle to look at. the applicant relations between washington, baghdad, and your bill as well. i put together for scenarios

babies don't worry. they are short. one of them i don't believe in, so i won't spend much time on. the point is the most likely scenario, that the scenario i like but the one that i have heard most often talked about which is surviving. one way or another they have been known. he is able to put together, get the majority which then selects him for his third term as prime minister. you know, eight years. that is long enough. you would think by any terms, we suddenly don't believe in more than that. there is something to be said about term limitations, especially in a new country where everything is being done for the first time. so with his victory we see more efforts to consolidate power over institutions of government, contain his rivals. you will have to do something about felicia riches under the

control of al qaeda, and the ability to not just take over territory there and recruit, but their ability to attack baghdad. over the weekend they were able for a short time to take over the road connecting baghdad to buy baghdad to cook. not good. i'm sorry. not good at all. what? yes. that is why your year. i think the point, again, he was successful in 2009 when he moved against nicias, at least three different she a malicious you were at war, shooting in baghdad. popular with the cities to a popular with the shia and certainly help to men is elections. but at that time something which i never hear acknowledged the is that he could only do that with the u.s. forces backing of the iraqi forces, and he did not

ask. aegis said i'm doing it and expected us to be there. this is now 2014. will it happen again? add don't know. but the point is, if he can't do it they are not going to do anything before the election because the rest is too great. if he thought he could replicate that the incident then he would do it because it would have a huge blow back, a huge positive push on his chances, but the risk of losing, of not winning is huge. the risk of high-cost and the rumors in baghdad where we were there, fighting going on. there were not doing well. i don't know. the truth is, i suspect that is probably -- there is lot of truth in it. so what will he do? he has to have u.s. support. we have the same support now. can he afford to invite other assistance? i don't think this in the arab

city hopes to win over would like it. i don't think a lot of them would like it either. that is the other big secret. they don't like the iranians, what they've done and don't want to see a more visible and active presence. so that is a problem. second scenario, coalition or combined coalitions as was pointed out, they decide to dump them. they don't have to vote. they could vote for someone else you don't hear much about the simi potential leaders, but there are a couple who could win votes. one of them, i hear from many years in syria, probably was very close and all of that time. i'm sure there are others, but the point is you have new coalitions and i just want to mention the one that seems to be attracting attention which is put together by the hakim

faction. the islamic supreme council. and they have joined. i don't know where he is. we don't talk about that, but they have joined in what can be a very powerful coalition because the group did very well in the local elections which surprised everybody. it is possible that they could have some kind of a majority however large or small. remember, though kurds will vote with liver faction wins. they like a winner. they figure that is to their advantage. they will not join with the cities. either way let's say the likelihood of a majority is likely and the kurdish behavior is a soon. this could give them a chance to choose. they're going to have to choose. either they want the presidency again or they might decide they want to be a speaker.

they think that is more powerful that is what they will go for it read that will be decided as of democratic elections are and the iraqis have learned democracy just like we played, behind closed doors, cut deals. this is who we are going to vote for. i don't think there has been won elections since 1990. the first one was really 1992 which was fixed as to who would get what percentage. what a day going to do? the losing a lot of support. they don't want to let the men. a real dilemma. probably one of the reasons why they are split and can't agree on a cooperation. i know want to get into too much but i just simply remind you, whenever these first two scenarios as to what the u.s. will do. unlikely scenario number three, the kurds are in disarray because of serious fighting.

increasingly unpopular because of the flirtation with turkey. maybe they will split their vote as well. and not how strong that alliance will be a what they will do. we have not seen these kind of prices before. what will happen? will this election result in the lebanon this edition of iraq? it could in the sense that the kurds will think that they have bought the presidency. day on the foreign ministry and that the power will continue to be divided along these fix lines i would hope that is not true, but i am sure there is some kind of expectation because everyone likes a sure thing. the other thing i would keep in mind is that a lot of the politicians are running for office. talking today that the eight molokai. he is this, that, whenever. they are for democracy. most of them before their recent campaign started had cut deals

to stay in power, had stayed in win other politicians had walked out of the cabinet. am thinking of the two that were here in january from a speaker of the parliament and deputy prime minister. both cities, both returned to baghdad, both cut deals. in the past has said very unpleasant things. and they don't like selling out and going back and forth all the time. that is why you see -- you can sort of guess where this is going to go. the last thing, that not going to happen scenario, iraq breaks off. not going to happen. okay. now what will washington do? would you have to keep in mind is if you look in our policy toward syria, we are shaking our

face that the russians and doing a lot of talking. winston churchill said georgia. the rock probably falls into that category as well. we have made commitments to help the iraqis. we recognize that counter-terrorism is a top priority. not our only priority but close to it. they're is a danger in making counter-terrorism you're only priority. brings you on pleasant friends and unhappy issues that you might not want to deal with. but what the u.s. has done and which i think we will continue is that we will provide support. we will recognize the elected government of iraq. that is why we recognize homology. we are accused of being pro. we made our choice. we support him. i don't think the united states

has a favorite candidate. there is something wrong with all of them. you don't have to like it hmm. this is politics. it is not by choice. all countries to my always "this ad nauseam. some governments are countries don't have friends, they have interests. we will support the government and we will do it because it is helpful. we want to continue. the things that we have started to beat you have to remember, when, came last fall and in january they thought they were going to talk all about terrorism and support and get it guess what? there went to congress. they talked a lot of politicians , the president. what did we talk about? democracy, what it means to have a democratic government and checks and balances and what do

you think you're doing? and there were a lot of questions about the measures that have been taken to consolidate power which really goes against some of the things -- and there were some good things that we try to install. so as i said, we will recognize that we will deal with it. the other interest we have is maintaining a balance. iraqis want that as well. they don't like ron. maybe there would like to move and and try to help clean some of this up, but i don't think that works for either side. the iraqis themselves want to see a balance. we will remind the government that breaking sanctions on iran is still not allowed. don't buy any arms, although that 29 billion, that is likely next. you know, it's nothing. nevertheless, we also think you have to rethink your policy on syria. supporting the regime is not

good. we encourage passage of the hydrocarbon law. let's cut some deals between baghdad and kurdistan. this will move to maybe the next level of disagreement over territories. we are trying to broker that, and i think that is an important thing to do. we cannot tell them what to do. we cannot have a favored candidate, and we cannot push for that. publicly is not doing bad either although privately i think we all learned that he does not like. [indiscernible] he has mentioned to people that he would like to see an alternative. working on that. i am told, but i don't know if it is true or not. so -- and i would also remind the kurds that we support the territorial and political integrity of the united irak. this is not the time to start waving the flag of we are going

to leave if you don't do what we want you to do. not good. those are areas where we can and should be speaking to remind and saying what we stand for, what could go wrong? everything. i -- i think mainly, though, the war with the terrorists gets worse. it is already getting worse. there is no sign of better. they're is a serious defeat of the forces, if they can now not only are they operating in areas around kirk, they're operating in kurdistan. they are around baghdad. they have blocked major roads. if that cannot be stopped, turned around, and if they cannot be defeated -- i won't even say eliminated, then the government in baghdad, whoever it is, has a really bad problem.

i would also whisper in as soon easier, what do you mean you're not going to vote? remember 2005? you did not participate in the constitution. you did not vote for the first parliament. you were not there. you are not at the table. you were not heard. not a good idea, but think that they have learned that. thank you very much. [applause] >> a few questions. a person i don't address the question to is welcome to chime and after the person that it is addressed to. we will do this for a few minutes and then turn to our audience. i will start with, met here. you talked about majority government, a majority versus national unity. very quickly, national unity government, everyone is included, everyone has a piece.

in majority government people are in the government commandos who are out then form an opposition. as i told people, iraq national unity government, for us to picture something akin to the key party and/or call roves people having two or three cabinet departments and the united states. picture what that would look like and our government my work. national unity government brings you. you mentioned the very real possibility of a sectarian majority government, probably pushing. any possibility for an inclusive majority government given that we have multiple parties now running, could use the that she a party that gets the first preponderant of the votes then reaching across, finding one of the multiple partners out there and then pulling in all or

perhaps part of the kurds. do you think that is it possible scenario? >> it's a great question. i think it is likely because the door is always open. you can make deals in different directions. and maybe in a sense iraq does the political opposition because it has not had political opposition sense 2003. the risk in taking that approach is that you are taking the approach of a political majority government. you will not necessarily have a political opposition. you why they did terry in opposition. even if -- even if one scenario, he and his group. he is able to work with the deputy prime minister and his

crew. at this point these groups are all aligned more or less. that might look across sectarian political majority government. i am not -- i am not certain that it will be viewed this way by the other iraqi, senate, and political groups because the speaker and his group have performed better than other groups. it would be risky to disenfranchise and based upon political deals. if it does happen, as they are now believing representatives politically after the part of the discussion and find a way to convince that maybe we are not part of the government this

time. we -- and is always been able to find allies to work with and other provinces cy, those representatives strongly support that will present in would be completely sectarian government whether it is a rock, shia, one possibility, iraqi, scheer, and iraqi series pushing away. it will depend on the result which will determine a great deal. >> quickly.

>> very good. i do, too, for the record. towards the very end use said breaking up not going to happen. yet every six months we are treated to a new map of kurdistan, city, portia. give us, you know, the brief version of one not. >> well, people who -- this is on. talk about 1916. now is the opportunity to rewrite history and, in effect, ethnic groups, religious groups to start to have their own territory. what it means is an independent kurdish state. if you look at their groups inside iraq, i don't think that is really what this game is all about. the sunni arabs talk a lot about

what they want, marginalized, don't have enough power. some might even talk about, well, we looked at our brothers been plus syria, jordan. and one hears rumors from time to time that there are plotting against the government by those terms of leaders who were very much involved in supporting the insurgencies in 2006 and seven. in other words, the ones that supported al qaeda groups and the fighting and then decided it was not in their interest and fought against them. they are now back fighting with or supporting al qaeda, isis, may be plotting some kind of coup on their own. i have trouble believing that that would gain much credibility among the arabs or anyone else. in my own view is about leverage

if you want tab leverage and you are a minority you have got to show that you have some kind of power, you can do something to either harm the state -- you have some kind of a -- file will just use the term weapon in the figurative sense. and so you better be paying attention to. i have assumed it -- not a cent, there have been at least bargaining going on between the government and the leaders. i don't know what has happened. i have not heard anything. maybe somebody knows, but i think still that mostly it is about leverage, but you have to be able to bargain for a position of strength which the senate is to not have. i think that iraqi nationalism as strong among the arabs. i think that most iraqis do not talk about the alternative.

the first identification and everything else second. i think that the danger of being too close and identified with iranian ambitions bothers a lot of iraqis on both sides. the kurds, too, i don't know that one hears as much talk about independence exempt from, but i think a lot of the kurds also see that this is a very dangerous time, the kurds in syria are fighting against each other in traditional fashion. the kurds in northern iraq are fighting against each other for power and control so i don't think it's a good time for them to talk about a. so i guess what i'm saying is for better or worse a rock will survive, but i also think that despite all of these difficulties iraq is making

economic progress. now the second-largest producer of oil. i think there is room for some kind of something which is a little more encouraging. >> it is a great question. i agree with doug. the relations that come out every six months, three or four parts. iraqi nationalism, it is pretty strong. it does hold people together. you have all locked. different communities. and still has appealed. these intangible are there, but the major incentive is though

country is tied to the zero build. the most likely is the independence anytime soon, there won't go that route. to the three years to build. at the moment it is completely dependent on baghdad. the region does not have an independent revenue stream. as a result have to work with baghdad for that revenue. half for other areas you will hear calls of from separate regions. those calls are concerning his. they don't material to above material as easily. you don't want that to be much more dominant.

so they're right government, the stakeholders, national reconciliation. >> not feeling fairly treated by the state. to have at the moment. one last point just so we can give the audience and that your's an idea, they not only -- the population or a rock kurdistan. in some cases as well which is a predominantly iraq promise. it feels unjustly treated by the federal government because most of the revenue where i come from

you look at the state of affairs it is not always sectarian. sometimes economic reasons bolero. >> nobody mentions the other minorities. the christians. where are they? they are literally between iraq and our place to mostly concentrated in that area have disputed territory, and i thought it was interesting, the proposal to create additional provinces which will definitely undercut kurdish demands for territory and might help the government to diffuse that issue. that would be an interesting development because they would be winners. >> i am going to be really unfair to our panelists and to speed around. the other panelists is not invited to comment on this question. can you talk about the effects of low turnout? if it is an important

distinction to you think that it would be different effects based on the suppression of the vote and voluntary boycott? >> the threat of boycott -- >> i have 30 seconds? >> you do. you do. >> the threat is a serious one. the threat -- we already have a precedent. in 2005 they did not embrace the political process wholeheartedly and that led to increasing the violence, and opportunities for other groups to comments. this time around isis is engaged in a very vigorous tactic. different areas, the locations, broad daylight, distributing leaflets and threatening people. they participate.

so it will be the major driver. there is always a possibility of further advocacy because they have had many electoral process is that some people might not be interested in. but this will be the most damaging, the most serious turn out. >> this is totally unfair to give you, but you talked about how the post-election maneuvering will be certainly dictated in washington baghdad. at think you gave short shrift their ted tehran and perhaps riyadh. you want to talk about the effects. >> yes. yes, there would be interested i don't think that they will have major influence. the one -- the saudis have the money to influence, the iranians have the personnel to engage.

a question is how much can and ron afford to get involved in iraq considering how involved it is in syria and how it is watching what is happening in afghanistan as well. that might put some restraints. i would say that the domestic factors are the most significant . >> that is a great point. but that we will turn to our audience. ma'am. >> of the bit more. >> trajectory. well, let's see. the 8-year war which a lot of people have not forgotten. on sundays the rise like to remember. that is really ours. they forget themselves.

they forget that they have much more to win if they stay careful as are talking about these things. a real opportunity, open border, 900-mile border. we have something like -- i've seen so many different numbers, how many millions of pilgrims come all four of them, especially not just those, but they come to the business a major industry. but for all these reasons the iranian presence is there. warpers is spoken in many streets. they control transportation

providing a trustee in providing gas and they do control the flow of water. in the country back and forth in may not be there at present. he was the major figure. he is now responsible for the word syria, but he is a powerful figure. he has influence with suny and portia and kurds so that there is no clean line at nick and -- ethnically or sectarian lines. they were able to penetrate a lot of organizations. remember, they trained the police. security and intelligence.

a lot of different ways that are hard to remove, but i think that it is a matter of time. i think my personal opinion, their influence who was at its greatest point. it will take a long time to separate that out more, but iraq is always going to be -- have to be thinking about what the iranians want and what they could to if there is not cooperation. they're not in a position to deny. most politicians cannot kurdish, simi, shia, a stop in tehran is mandatory for anyone who wants to, you know, go up at least the political ladder. >> very briefly, the relations are much more dynamic.

the erotic government. that is what you would hear. it does not work this way. they have to work with the government because they have described, very involved on different levels. at the end of the day i would not look at that selection. not necessarily. it is the election results. in other words, they give the mandate to any political group. that group will be much more dominant. the election results. >> i'm going to give you the last word. >> i have a question. my understanding is that they

tend to be of little more cooperative. so do you see that being the case? al qaeda tend to work together? -- it do they have tended to work together? >> i got that. absolutely. look. very vibrant. of vibrant sector. thousands of organizations, some of them to work on awareness issues to raise public awareness about the electoral process and how it works and what you need to do. you also, just like with any other sector you have a lot of competition between those groups

. it becomes counterproductive to educating the public and raising the profile of the electoral process. civil society, as much as it is trying to do, it has received a great deal of training for the last 11 years from different u.s. in gaea's and other international ngos, but the culture is restricted by the fact is you have to work with the iraqi government. you have -- you can be easily and in a lot of cases be unduly fooled by the government. and that is a negative outcome. a positive outcome is that all of the political parties and the resource will parties, they know that they have to work. they create their own society groups.

you see those cases happening. >> i just wanted to, i think we don't see a lot of this from where we are year. we don't get a lot of animation. probably during more than anyone else and groups that -- there's a lot of traditional, it's more difficult they face the difficulty which goes beyond us. they are a major part of civil society. again, we need to pay more attention to those things as well.

[inaudible question] you seem to be implying that they are probably not very serious. why would you -- why do you think that and in the long run the thing that because -- >> there are two misconceptions. first of all, when i talked about the leverage i was thinking of suny. the kurds think they have leverage. they are meant, and especially

to describe suny, erebus suny and their tribes and what they are doing. and i am not pessimistic. i think i said i was optimistic that the recent deals where baghdad has agreed to allow the kurds to export the sale of 100,000 barrels a day which they have, by the way, sitting in storage tanks. the turks are playing a game. the turks are friendly with the kurds, encouraging them because they want all else sales and they want connections with baghdad. hates -- i don't think that is to we could turn to say how he feels, but, you know, it has its ups and downs. the point is if you have a choice of the kurds or baghdad you will choose to my would

guess, baghdad because there is more to be gained in terms of kurdish oil but the whole country, investments and reconstruction and money to be made. so leverage is important for anybody does not have it all wants to have some kind of force to get power. the kurds are sort of -- a lot of tunnel vision. syria has changed everything. no longer claim, as if he really was to my he is not the head of all of the kurds. there is the ambitions for unity that had taken have very serious blow because he did not factor in how his relations with turkey would make him anathema.

but if they were anti turkeys they would be pro turkish. so that if you want, correct me if you see it differently. probably the kurds and their issues are more divided than they have been. >> to you have anything to add? i would just add, from anchorage point of view, absolutely correct. good relations with baghdad are more important on a whole host of issues that our relations. and the beauty is its ultimately you choose baghdad it is not like the royal stay in the ground. you can have your cake and eat it too. the church refused to export independently ultimately they're going to have to acquiesce to export. and so turkey is in a win-win situation either way. it is going to get even to the

short term or long term northern kurdish iraq. >> my question, the scenario, outcome of the election. and one from the americans. >> well, -- >> we will quote you on this. >> who wants to start? >> just came back from baghdad. >> optimistic. i like my second scenario. i mean, they are going to win a majority. i think the kurds will support whoever, whichever one looks like they are in a stronger position.

but they have made so many enemies that i could really see that he would not survive that second round in which the living coalition selects the prime minister. i could see -- and there are other candidates among the parties, including within his own party who, i think, would be acceptable or it might be that anybody but would be acceptable. he has angered some many people. whether it is for his own self-interest all we are going to go through another chairman, there is no end in sight in a sense of what his instinct really is. you know, does he see himself perpetuating his role? is he going to become what some people say? i am not saying that is the way i see it, but he has a propensity to wants to acquire power which makes him look that way. it would not matter.

anybody who did what he did in terms of weakening the parliament, taking the accord under control and a lot of other things, a good section of the military reporting directly to him. when did we last see all of that ? maybe this is not a good idea. maybe we need to vote for somebody else while we still have the opportunity to do so. so i would say i kind of like my second scenario that he does not , you know, get the vote. it is a possibility, but i don't know, and i don't think that the united states is going to get involved in making any part -- we will not weigh in on that selection. much too dangerous. >> the scenario proposed is viewed by many as an ideal

scenario. not necessarily with the completion change, but at the minimum, restricting the powers as a minimum because they have -- he has consolidated power to the level that raises those questions about when was the last time we and the consolidation. that is what they're thinking. that is what the government formation. i would say we will close that bridge once we get to it. because before that there -- my ideal scenario, i don't use the word optimism. but the favre scenario for me is free and fair election on election day and a good turnout,

in particular the iraqi cities. less destabilization because you can actually have that whether it's instigated by militias. even state actors. you have to have those conditions after the election if you want any scenario workout. otherwise you will be will to have an optimistic scenario. >> so, you mentioned -- i think that is an important question of an obviously popular ticket items, a decrease in, especially in kandahar province has issued declarations that they will be holding.

what do you think the odds of a free and fair election are given, you know, getting kind of stuck between a rock and fireplace with government kind of issuing certain decrees and the board of commissioners recently issuing their resignation. to those mechanisms for dispute resolution, should there be any allegation? >> you know, i've won't say relatively, but they have been free and fair. they have allowed international. we have not mentioned one of the -- probably the strongest insulants is on should we but, say nothing of who should we

vote for. only once actually recommended voting for a specific candidate to my knowledge, did encourage voting for the block in the first election, but i think most of them tend to -- they do support voting and the process and i think that that is a strong incentive for many to do this. i think that they will. the other thing is security will be so tight. three days or four or five days. traffic is virtually shut down. you must be in your home area, but there is not going to be a lot of traveling around. to give an opportunity for groups to try to do something, one has to assume, but that might help to ensure better security.

the only cleric who said something political, it is not permitted to vote for a non-al qaeda candidate. who is listening? i don't think that is going to have much weight. >> in terms of the process of self, the independent high electoral commission is in charge of elections. they have always done a good job it is in a very tough position, different political players want to influence the decisions. one of the necessary steps for the fairness of their election is that every political group will have representatives at the voting station. all groups are watching each other. they get at tally from the station which will be important. this scenario and all of these steps will insure a free and

fair election. but it is similar to 2010 when there is also an analysis. the prime minister, as san as he was on tv he disputed the results and said we expected many more seats than what we received. therefore the processes not right and we demand a recount. that time when he said that he had high expectations. this time me and i expectations to the numbers i am hearing. some numbers in baghdad as well. the iraqi parliament is 328 seats. the expectations by the prime minister and his group is that they will get between 70 to 110. so 100 san, looking for eight years now. now will be very surprised if they get 110 because that is i

number. that is the expectation. the same scenario that happened four years ago, skew the results and demand a recount. when that happens, u.s. forces were able to play a role in mediating disputes. this time aside from that i don't know who can stop them. >> i will weigh in. think we have a tradition now, albeit a short tradition, but a tradition of free and fair elections. the metric that i like to use for this is bosnia. prior to the 2009 provincial elections almost totally controlled. in the 2009 election he went down to 3 feet, something like that. one an outright majority of the seats. in 2013 they lost the majority,

got up plurality, but got so upset that everyone else and did anyone but the state of law coalition which ended at with a different name. the name of the party down there. it's a derivative party having the governorship. so i think the iraqi people expect that their votes will be counted fairly and that there would actually be uprising or the election not to be free and fair. now there is lots of things that go on before the election in terms of disqualification of candid it's. that is always something to watch very carefully, who is being disqualified and why and the justification. says the disqualification of a candid it have any relationship to the statements that have been made by the head of his party and the?

and not only relative to the government but relative to the people of control the application, commission. this is one of t

>> we have to ways to break the cycle of government. and that has to be the genesis of where it all comes from and the involvement. and now we need that, to petition our government. one way to do it is to create a way that everyone gets involved and also a political majority.

so basically to have this and it is too late to have it in any other way. and it seems that no one wants to think that they are enjoying another part of this because they were not hitting the fork in the road as part of a constituency. but what we have here and we are enjoying the way that we are discussing this. it is an important majority. and then also one of the other constraints on that, in other words putting these policies together. it is because it is a part of

that history. we have seen in the past people who went to the other sector. and so it is very important as we talk about this. so there are 10 or 12 shiites who had more seats and they ended up going there and then had 91 suits. so as the government had its shares of ministers and etc., they came and many of the more prominent and they said, okay. you are friends unless and friends of the ministry and they ended up not getting any job in

the cabinet and then they had to submit this and that's the reason why they are not able to participate anymore. and so that there is one of the approach. so the same thing with the sunnis. many of them came with this state of things and they see it as a footnote because the problem is not proof. they first two half be good to the other shia who meets them. and this includes this as well. [inaudible] domestic education and domestic policy. so the situation is governed by another rule and the correlation. so at the end of the day when we

going to end up with? we would not have a static situation. and the sunnis will come second and if they were to come and make a correlation, what i assume will be a part of it, enough for a majority to talk about the government, they will have to ask themselves the question and and my favorite is a shia to have five or six reads and what do i know from it from this experience or am i safe from the rest of the group and, you know, because they are closer to me. and you are almost guaranteed this money on a repeat of the scenario and people who have a disadvantage have said that they

will maybe be settling. so that is my viewpoint that is much safer in dealing with any other group heard and their reaction is a part of this as well. >> panelist ken reacted to comment and also we will listen to closing statements as well as we are now out of time. >> those are very good points. what we would hope is that people would rise above those interests. but i believe that what you say only underscores the fact that we have this as far as we can from the national reconciliation yet. >> first of all i would say that the possibility of the 20 tens scenario is there. and every one of the iraqi elections surprises us. so the 2010 elections, very few

people expected that. and with their former prime minister, no one expected him to win 91 seats. and no one expected him to perform the memorial in 2009 in the provincial elections. so i will consider would consider the possibility of a surprise. after the surprise that sin in the post elections, that is one consistencies will conmen and it is an interest that is driving the decision for doing negotiations for the lack of courage. so i would say that the big positive and take away for this is that this is our of my closing statement that despite all the violence that is taking place, the elections are taking place and that is a positive

indication and it is part of the steps undertaken for violence to be contained. >> thank you very much. again, i would like to disclose my conflicts of business. as we tell our clients, what we tell them is very applicable for the government formation process to tell our clients that your deal is not going to take the path that you think is going to take and it is going to take at least twice as long as your most pessimistic case for closing this. so on that note, we thank you again to our panelists and judith. thank you for organizing this and thank you for the invite. thank you very much for your interest in iraq. sometimes we talk and it seems like 10 of us only follow it. that we are thrilled to see you all here today. thank you so much.

>> [inaudible] [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> coming up tonight here on c-span2, two, it is but tv in prime time with a focus on navy deals are at first, the author of the book tried outdoors, and then johnnie walker who wrote codename johnny walker, the extraordinary story of the iraqi who risk everything to fight with the u.s. navy deals. and the author of eyes on target. finally, seal team six, which is the unit that killed osama bin laden. booktv all this week here on c-span2. >> the u.s. annual women in the

world summit in a conversation with hillary clinton and firsthand stories of bombings and chemical attacks in syria. here is a preview. >> we need to produce conclusive prosperity. i'm a product of the american middle class and grateful for everything that i was given as a child to prepare me to have a fascinating life, obviously. but i don't want to see other children denied that opportunity. and it is an economic issue. it is a moral issue in a political issue. i want to get back to evidence-based decision-making. there is too much that has gone on. [applause] too much has gone on in our politics recently that is pure ideology, pure partisanship. the disguise of commercial

interests behind a political façade. and the result is that we are kind of marching backwards instead of forwards. so from my perspective we often reach these points in american history where we are sort of trying to decide which way we go and whether we embrace the future and how we go about doing it. i think it is one of those times. so if we are going to be true to ourselves, we have an election coming up this year that we ought to be paying attention to. because that will set the parameters for a lot of what can or should be done. as christine was saying, the administration included the imf performs and we think that they are in our interest and the world interest and congress got all wrapped up around misconceptions, as well as political infighting mostly against the white house. so i think that we need a very

open, evidence-based mature conversation. it may lead to places that i am not enthusiastic about that wouldn't be my choice. but compromised is an essential part of running a great democracy. and we cannot afford to have people who deny the right and the need for compromise. and that is what i want to see, tom. not just in the editorial pages where you write about this and try to make it part of the points that i think are important. but we also need this in people's kitchens and in offices and on the field watching her kids play soccer. we need people to not be afraid to talk to somebody who disagrees with you. this is one of my biggest problems that i see. because if we do not begin to talk across all the lines that divide us, we will be at further

and further separate and we can't afford to do that. >> be sure to watch all of our coverage from this year's women in the world summit starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> there is an old saying that victory has a hundred fathers and i wouldn't be surprised if the information is part of this in regard to all of the recent activities. >> we were just talking about the fact that the interrogation last week, with senator goldwater, asked some questions about the use of the carrier aircraft at six with the markings painted out. we figured that somebody over there has told them about that thing on wednesday morning and that goldwater will spring and they will try to spin it in such a way that it looks like you are

wrong and i was wrong in saying that there wasn't. >> historic audio from the u.s. attempt to overthrow the castro saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span radio in washington dc at 90.1 fm online at c-span.org and nationwide on xm satellite radio channel 120. >> the acting director of national drug control policy defended the president's 2015 budget request before the house panel last month. michael botticelli also discussed the efforts to tackle drug abuse and trafficking here in the united states. testifying before the house appropriations subcommittee on financial services and general government, this is about an hour and 15 minutes. >> i want to welcome michael botticelli. this is the first time he has

appeared and i appreciate you coming here to testify he is charged with and so we have dealt with these issues home and abroad. so today the committee will talk about the national drug control policy's fiscal year 2015 budget request, along with your efforts in this is requesting an increase of over $1 million to the irs and over $500 million to the gsa. the administration has recommended a decrease below the enacted fiscal year 2015 for the

high intensity drug trafficking areas program and this includes the drug-related communities programs. and this includes the drug enforcement and prevention that are there to mobilize communities and increase collaboration and so i would applaud the reductions in federal spending, but it makes me wonder why these drug prevention and enforcement programs are being reduced and so states are telling our children that that the decriminalizing of recreation marijuana and the administration

doesn't feel that drugs are being kept away from our children and that this should be increasing the bureaucracy with the irs. and the agency is charged with developing or nation's drug policies and we have the difficult assignment of ensuring that not only the department is date and the department of defense and the department of justice and the department of homeland security and health and human services all of them are working in a coordinated manner to address our highest priority drug concerns. and we have heard that the food and drug administration does not always take law-enforcement concerns with prescription drug abuse into account when approving new prescription and

pain medication. we've also heard concerns the reductions in military spending could significantly reduce counter narcotics in latin america and that increases the availability of illegal drugs in the united states and we hope to hear the testimony today will you all are doing about some of these major concerns. our nation continues to fight a drug problem that takes lives and brings about violence and harms our communities and families and i know that you and your staff are working hard to keep our country safe. so once again, welcome and i look forward to your testimony and with that i would like to turn it over to the ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to also join in welcoming the national drug control policy.

[inaudible] the office of national drug control policy's is at the forefront of federal drug policy of several federal agencies such as the department of justice, transportation, state and treasury. the fiscal year 2015 budget request is approximately $311 million from a decrease of 55 million from fiscal year 2014. this will hopefully be targeted towards improved coordination and oversight of the drug control programs and policies. something that i can tenured to be concerned about and this is in light of the attorney general's proposal to reduce drug sentencing. i hope that we will be able to discuss this issue so i can better understand your role in these efforts and learn what you are doing to reform some of our criminal justice policies in regards to drugs.

i also continue to be interested in the development of the caribbean border or context strategy. the fiscal year consolidated appropriations act includes language requiring the agency to develop the counter narcotics strategy just as you have done from other u.s. borders. i believe that this is not only an issue of kerry but extremely critical because of increased drug trafficking in the region. it is essential that puerto rico and the virgin islands are part of this strategy. i look forward to discussing these and other issues with you in great detail. i thank you for your service and for appearing before us today. >> turman lodges wanted to be here today. he sends his regards and without objections i will make his statement of part of the record. so now, i think about art when i

think about this. all right. >> okay. >> just like an opera singer for the boston red sox. [laughter] >> okay. if you could figure remarks to about five minutes or so, that will give us time for questions and your entire statement will be submitted for the record. >> chairman crenshaw amok ranking member, members of this committee. my name is michael botticelli, the director of national drug control policies and am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the fiscal year 2015 budget request. part of the executive office of the president. omdcp was created in 1998 and marked its 20th anniversary. it establishes policies, priorities, and objectives for the nations drug control

programs and the goals are to coordinate the federal government's efforts to reduce illicit drug use and consequences including drug manufacturing and trafficking, as well as drug-related crime, violence, and health consequences. to achieve these goals are part of the national drug control strategy. including budget spending supports this strategy. the administration strategy first released in 2010 is based upon input from public health and safety professionals across the country and decades of research from the nation's top scientist that illustrate the addiction is a brain disease, one that can be prevented and treated and from which one can recover. omdcp also works with our national and international partners to develop national product strategy and northern border narcotics strategy. because the year 2014, it also contained a directive for omdcp

to develop a counter narcotics strategy which is now in process. and our nation faces a number of substance-abuse challenges. there is an instance of drug abuse in this country. drug overdose driven by prescription painkillers surpassed homicides in traffic crashes in the number of injury death in america. heroin use remains relatively low in the united states as compared to other drugs, but there has been a troubling increase in the number of people using heroin. evidence suggests that those users with chronic opiate addictions will substitute heroin for prescription opiates since it is often cheaper than opiate drugs. a recent report on the substance abuse and mental health services administration found that while only 3.6% of people have started using prescription drugs on medically ever initiated hair when used in this fighter timeframe, four fifths of the

initiative had previously used prescription pain relievers and these findings demonstrate that we need to take a comprehensive approach to addressing drugs, including widespread use by first responders and emergency opiate reversal medication as well as expanded access to medications for treatment. multiple studies show that young people's attitudes toward her one use of nonmedical use are softening. each day an estimated 4400 young people under the age of 18 and she drug use for the first time. this can have a profound effect for the future since research shows us that earlier person uses drugs, the more likely they will develop a substance abuse problem. to enable us to establish an accomplish these and other numerous challenges from substance use disorders come the president is requesting

311 million for fiscal year 2015 and are represents a decrease of 55 million for the fiscal year 2013 enacted budget. but we have tried to meet the strategy schools while reducing spending. the budget request as funding for two grant programs that support efforts throughout the nations to reduce drug use and consequences. the drug-free communities provide grants to local drug-free community coalitions to prevent substance abuse. directed at in partnership, the program provides grants to local programs and coalitions, including to prevent and reduce youth substance abuse. during the fiscal year 2013 from a total of 643 grants were awarded. the presidents request for dfc

grants program is 85.6 million. a decrease of 6 million from fiscal year 2014 and the active budget. the high intensity drug trafficking areas or hideout program helps improve the efficiency of drug control efforts by facilitating cooperation among federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement as well as other drug controlled organizations. the presidents request of 193 for the program is a decrease of 45 million from the fiscal year 2014 enacted budget. however this request maintains the highest program focus and reducing drug trafficking. corporation options will be maintained. in addition to the responsibilities to implement the strategy, the office is responsible for coordinating, overseeing, and evaluating the effectiveness comprise a national drug control program or the federal government as well as overseeing the national drug

control budget to ensure that funding proposed by these agencies is adequate to carry out the strategy. the presidents national drug control budget request is 25.4 billion government lied. this represents an increase of 151 million over the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. reflecting the need to address both public health and public safety, the portion of the budget us to war treatment and prevention efforts,, 43%, has gone to its highest level in over 12 years. i would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify. and i am happy to answer any questions you might have. >> thank you very much. let me start by asking. you mentioned what will be reduced by $45 million in i mentioned in my opening remarks that it seems like a kind of strange sense of priorities when you ask for billion dollars for

the irs and have a billion for the general service administration and yet the last couple of years the funding has been reduced in the proposed budget, but congress each year has restored the funding. again in today's world when states are legalizing marijuana and pumping productions up in afghanistan, cocaine, heroin use, all of that. what do you think of the impact would be if you were to reduce by $45 million in. >> clearly the program is really essential both at the federal, state, and local level in being able to enhance efficiency and information sharing among law enforcement entities. we consider that an incredibly valuable program. but our challenge is with unrestrained resources, making sure that we retain core functions and services with our

program. so to that extent this will not result in any culmination of any of our programs. but will maintain its core mission or functions in the biggest impact will be on the ability to address emerging drug that's what we see in the community. so will preserve the core functions in our core height of infrastructure. >> so in your opinion its effect of the things you are doing, but it's a matter of not as much money to go around, but as you know the last couple of years congress has restored that and so you wouldn't be upset if that happened again. >> you know, we say that the programs are incredibly valuable. one of the things over the past year that i have seen other programs is her ability to be flexible at the state and local level in terms of relievers on its local threats and local

emergency. >> another question is that you have this drug-free community program and there are like 600 coalitions across the united states and they work on mobilizing communities and increasing collaboration, things like that. so how do you measure the progress is being made by those community groups and the grants? how do you go about deciding who is effective and how effective things like that are? >> so one of the things that i think that we know is that local drug use patterns are different among localities. and what it requires to really reduce substance use at a local level is really looking at those community factors and also convening all the local stakeholders, agencies, looking to include this at the local level. as you indicated for fiscal year 2014, we are estimating that we are going to have 672 of those

local coalition. they have been nationally evaluated and have been shown that those communities that have theirs are able to substantially reduce drug use in their communities. so these are programs that are implementing evidence-based prevention programs and are also nationally evaluated and have been shown to reduce substance abuse at the local level. >> those funds are being proposed to be reduced. so how would that impact your ability to give less grants are with the grants be smaller? how would you handle that deduction? >> at this point it doesn't mean that we would take back any existing grants. this is the those grants would continue through the grant cycle. but what would mean is that we would probably be able to award 50 less grants and fiscal year 2014 compared what we are estimating for 2014. >> how much do you think it would take to continue to fund

the number of grants and government we were funded in the past? >> in terms of looking at this, that is approximately $92 million for the program so $92 million. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i was going to be my first question also. so i don't know if you got the numbers right in the same way as i see it. not you, but determined. he said 672 and that is what it is now. it will be reduced to 614. is that correct? >> yes, that is correct. >> and he spoke about spreading money around for? that is a program that seems to be working and we wonder why the humans ration with want to cut proposed a cut. and i think you are doing something unless i heard it wrong, something that we hear

from all members of the committee and that is asking how can you continue to function at a level that does credit to a program that obviously works support of many members of this committee. >> it is one of the backbones of prevention in the united states with an incredibly valuable program to us. obviously we had to look at how we have restrained spending in fiscal year 2015. and again i think that the proposal, if enacted, would we that we don't eliminate any of the existing grants but that we have about 50 less new grants in 2015. >> so you don't think it will be the result of reducing from 672 this ex-14? because we went by those numbers. >> it would be an overall

reduction. but it does not mean that we would eliminate any existing grants. so that money would continuing it just means that we would have less money and we would be able to award 50 less new grants in fiscal year 2015. >> okay. let me ask you about the narcotics strategy. that was, as you mention, at the request of many of us, including the resident commissioner from puerto rico. in this issue speaks to the two situations and a lot of those that speak to it, first the territory has less attention than the state. but most importantly in this case that we are shooting ourselves in the foot by allowing one border to be totally open. and not only to enter the territory but to make it to the

mainland. so it is setting this one up and i want to hear your thoughts on how that works. it not only helps those from having the drugs come into this area, but then it helps his estates with drugs coming into the state. >> really our ability to interdict drugs is really core to the strategy as we have indicated. so the more drugs that we can intercept on the left that we have come into our local communities. so clearly having the strategy that supports the work that we are trying to do domestically is particularly important. and we have made progress in terms of the development of that. we have already convened meetings across our inner agency looking at how each of our relevant federal interagency partners can