even if they have no tariff barriers, that they are experiencing, they still have problems in terms of getting their goods to market. and so part of what we're trying to do is to find ways in which we can lower some of the other barriers to export for african countries, not just a tariff issue, but how can we make sure that there is greater transportation networks, how can we make sure that trade financing is in place, what are the of the mechanisms that may inhibit exports from african countries, so that's the first thing. ..

>> the infrastructure's not built, so part of what we have to do is to find ways to integrate africa. much of that is a question of infrastructure, some of it has to do with coordinating regulatory systems between countries. we're embarking on some experiments starting in east africa to see if we can get uganda, kenya, tanzania -- see, you guys know all of them. [laughter] we're starting to work with

these countries to see can we get some blocs of effective trading taking place? because, look, obviously there's going to be a certain market for certain goods. i mentioned flowers from kenya. the market, that's primarily going to be in some of the wealthier countries. but there are going to be some goods that it's going to be much easier to sell if i'm a kenyan businessman, it's going to be easier for me to sell my goods as a tans any january or ugandan than it is for me to try to compete with nike or, you know, you know, apple in the united states. right? and historically, when you look at how trade develops, if you look at asia, for example, which obviously has grown

extraordinarily fast, a huge volume of that trade is within the region first, and then over time that becomes a launching pad from which to trade globally. so this is an area where i think we can also provide some assistance and help. but my just to answer directly your question, we are very strongly committed to making sure that agoa is reauthorized and, obviously, we've got a bunch of members of congress here who care about this deeply as well. okay. how much time do we have, by the way? i just want to make sure -- >> [inaudible] >> they're saying one hour. [laughter] okay. i think we've got time for two more questions. well, i'm sorry, but -- [laughter] you know, the -- all right. so it's a gentleman's turn. let me, let me see.

this gentleman in the white right here. that guy right there. hold on a minute. >> hi, i'm james -- [inaudible] from liberia. it is a pleasure meeting you, mr. president. my question has to do with the issue of antitrust law. you will be meeting our leader next week. will you discuss the issue of antitrust law, are you willing to include it on your agenda, please, to solve our problems back home? >> well, you know, obviously each country's different, and i'll be honest with you, i'm not familiar with the antitrust laws in every country. but what i would certainly commit to doing is to talk about antitrust in the broader context of what i said at the beginning

after maybe the first question, and that is the issue of rule of law and how it interacts with the economy. if you have monopolyies or collusion between a few companies that create artificial barriers to new entrants, then economic theory will tell you that invariably that is inefficient. it means consumers are going to pay more for worse products. it means those companies can concentrate more and more wealth without actually improving what they produce. and over time the economy stagnates. and here in the united states we have a history of huge, big corporations controlling huge sectors of the economy, and over

time we put in laws to break up those monopolies and to create laws to guard against artificial monopolies that prevented competition. so antitrust is one element of a broader set of laws and principles that every country should be adopting with the notion that, look, if you're successful, if you are a company like apple that innovated, or a company like microsoft that came up with a new concept, you should be able to get big, and you should be able to be successful. and those who founded it, like bill gates, should be wealthy. but what you also want to make sure of is the next generation, the googles or the facebooks, that they can be successful too in that space. and that means that you have to

make sure that those who got there first aren't closing the door behind them. which all too often, i think, happens in many countries, not just in african countries. so you make an excellent point, and i will make sure that that's incorporated into the broader discussion. okay. this young lady right here. yes. because she looks so nice. [laughter] [applause] >> thank you very much. my name is josephine, i'm from kenya -- >> no, we've got a -- [inaudible] [laughter] that's it. go ahead. >> thank you for these good initiatives for young people and thank you for believing the young people. i know you're going to ask them all -- [inaudible] people back in our countries, and my concern would be how will you be able to engage them to commit to their promises?

because i know they're going to promise you -- [laughter] >> well -- [applause] all right, don't, don't get carried away here. [laughter] well, look, part of what we've done here by building this network that we're going to be doubling over the next couple of years is we're going directly to the young people and creating these networks and these opportunities. and i, what we're already seeing, i think, is many countries are excited by this. they're saying, you know what? this is something that can be an empowering tool for us, so let's take advantage of it. there are going to be some that may feel somewhat threatened by it. there's no doubt about that. but the good thing is we will be creating this network. there are a whole bunch of people who are following this

online, who are following it on social media. we'll have these regional centers. you will help to make sure that some of these promises are observed, because the continent of young people is going to be paying attention and will be able to see which countries are really embracing this opportunity to get new young people involved and which ones are ignoring it. this promise. and so i will say to every one of these leaders you need to take advantage of the most important resource you have, and that's the amazing youth in these countries. [applause] but you're going to have to also help to hold them accountable collectively, across countries. and that's part of why this network can be so important.

so this is sad, but i have to go. >> oh! >> i have other work to do. [laughter] the good news is you've got all these really amazing people who are still going to be meeting with you and talking with you, and most importantly, this -- what an amazing opportunity it is for all of you to get to know each other and to talk and to compare ideas and share concepts going forward. the main message i want to leave you with is that in the same way i'm inspired by you, you should be inspired by each other. that africa has enormous challenges, the world has enormous challenges. but i tell the young people that intern in the white house -- and i usually meet with them at the end of their internship after six months -- i always tell them, you know, despite all the bad news that you read about or you see on television, despite all the terrible things that happen in places around the

world, if you had to choose a time in world history in which to be born and you didn't know who you were or what your status or position would be, you'd choose today because for all the difficultyies, the world has made progress, and africa's making progress. and it's growing. and there are fewer conflicts, and there's less war. and there's more opportunity. and there's greater democracy, and there's greater observance of human rights. you know, progress sometimes can be slow, and it can be frustrating, and sometimes you take two steps forward and then you take one step back. but the great thing about being young is you are not bound by the past. and you can shape the future.

and if all of you work hard and work together and remain confident in your possibilities and aren't deterred when you suffer a setback, but you get back up and you dust yourself off and you go back at it, i have no confidence -- i have no doubt that you're going to leave behind for the next generation and the generation after that an africa that is strong and vibrant and prosperous and is ascendant on the world stage. so i can't wait to see what all of you do. good luck. [applause] ♪ ♪ [cheers and applause] >> and president obama is going to be awarding the national medal of arts and humanities

later today to a number of performers and artists. you can watch that online, we'll bring it to you live, just go to c-span.org. he'll be awarding that medal to singer linda ronstadt, film maker jeffrey catsen burg and public radio's diane rehm. michelle obama also expected to be there at 3:00 this afternoon, and again, you can watch it streaming live at c-span.org. >> and after six weeks of talks over an capitol hill, house and senate negotiators have agreed on a compromise plan to work toward fixing veterans' health care programs. the chairs of the house and senate veterans aappears committee have scheduled a news conference today to unveil their plan. we'll have live coverage at 1:30 eastern. and the house and senate both meeting today for legislative work at 2:00 eastern time. the house has 16 bills scheduled today including one that deals with airfare fees and one on

sanctions against north korea. the senate will be voting on a number of nominations and later this week highway funding. you can watch live coverage of the senate debait here on c-span2 and the house over on c-span. and some developments in the israel/palestinian conflict. u.n. secretary-general ban ki-moon just returned from a trip to the middle east. he says gaza is in critical condition and that all occupying powers have an obligation to protect their civilians. he made those remarks just before reports of an airstrike hitting a hospital in gaza. let's take a look at some of his remarks. >> as the world marks -- [inaudible] it is time for an immediate, unconditional humanitarian ceasefire. in the name of humanity, the violence must stop. as you know, i have just returned from the region. over the course of six days, i held extensive consultations with the leaders in the region in eight countries in the middle

east as well as the u.s. secretary of state john kerry who has been working tirelessly and valiantly to end the fighting. since my return during the weekend, i have continued with a number of calls to all the leaders including prime minister netanyahu of israel this morning. i had a long talk with him, again, urging him to stop this violence and agree and honor the international community's joint, common efforts and call for urgent i humanitarian, unconditional ceasefire as a critical condition. israeli missiles have pummeled gaza. hamas rockets have randomly struck israel. no country would accept the threat of rockets from above and tunnels from below. at the same time, all occupying

powers have an international legal obligation to protect the civilians. i was deeply disappointed that dangerous hostilities resumed on sunday, but since sunday evening a relative and very fragile calm on the ground has been established. the temporary pause in fighting brought a brief respite to war-weary civilians, it also revealed how much the massive israeli assault has devastated the lives of the people of gaza. we saw scenes of indiscriminate destruction. some described it as a manmade hurricane, a whole neighborhood reduced to debris, rubble. blocks are flattened, apartment

buildings, scores of bodies still buried under mountains of twisted wreckage. the death toll kept climbing. the fighting has claimed well over 1,000 palestinian lives, most of them civilians, hundreds of them children. hamas rocket fire has claimed the lives of three israeli civilians. at least 16 palestinian civilian deaths and more than 200 injuries came as a result of an appalling assault on a u.n. school. we were sheltering families, women and children, who had sought refuge from the fighting. ongoing hostilities have prevented establishing conclusive responsibility and this imperative to do so and to have accountability for this

outrageous crime. indeed, there must be accountability and us have disfor crimes -- and justice for crimes committed by all sides. on friday i spoke with some of our staff to thank them for their heroic work. all of our colleagues told me there is no safer place in gaza. the people of gaza have nowhere to run. they are trapped and besieged on a speck of land. every area is a civilian area. every home, every school, every refuge has become a target. the casualty and damage figures also raise serious questions about proportionality. today more than 173,000 gazans are seeking protection in facilityings. that means about 10 --

facilityings. that means about 10% of the entire population is sheltering under the u.n. flag. i repeat yet again my call on israel and all parties to do vastly more to insure the safety of these u.n. sites and the security of the people who have sought sanctuary there. israelis and palestinians have a responsibility to stop the fighting now, to start the dialogue now and to address the root causes that will finally break the endless cycles of senseless suffering. that means securing peace through mutual respect, an end to the economic strangulation of gaza and nearly half century of occupation. more suffering and siege conditions in gaza will only hurt innocent civilians, further

isolate israel, empower extremists on all sides and leave our world far less safe. that is why i will continue to work with the palestinian president, mahmoud abbas, and other regional and global leaders to deliver the peace that the israeli and palestinian people so desperately need and so fully deserve. thank you. >> that was some of the comments today from if u.n. secretary general -- from the u.n. secretary-general. we'll continue to keep you posted on any updates. fox news national security analyst k.t. mcfarland also had comments recently about the middle east and the illegal immigration situation on the u.s. southern border. she spoke at the centennial institute's annual western conservative summit in denver for about 20 minutes. ♪ ♪

>> alyssa, i've got to tell you that when i wrote that column about president obama's west point speech and compared it to a krispy kreme doughnut, they wrote back to say, no way. [laughter] i was first here two years ago, and my dear friend, ambassador marilyn ware, introduced me. so i got up and said who here watches fox news? everybody's hand went up. and i said, i'm the brunette. and they all got it. [laughter] by the way, everybody still watch fox news? raise your hand. okay. fox news, in its infinite wisdom, has now started hiring brunettes. we now have kimberly guilfoyle, we have andrea tanner the process, you just 45erd from my new colleague, mary katherine hamm, and even katie pavlich, she's a blond, but she's a dark blond. [laughter] so we're very excited that this is a new trend.

i was very pleased when john wanted me to come back and talk about foreign policy, and i started writing my remarks about two weeks ago. and i was listening on monday to the president's press secretary who said president obama had ushered in a new era of global tranquility. [laughter] so i wrote this speech, right? guess what? by thursday there were several wars. so i decided i'm going to rewrite the speech and talk to you about why we are not in an era of global tranquility. in fact, i think that the last six years of american foreign policy we have never seen a more dangerous world with bad leaders. i mean, we have been in bad places before, don't get me wrong. we have, you know, we've had civil war, we had world war ii. there have been very difficult and dark times in america's history. but this is one of the few times where we've had, i think, extremely weak leadership and leadership which wants to step back from the world stage.

when president obama started declaring the era of leading from behind, which is what i think the obama doctrine is all about, he didn't understand that you lead from behind, you're not leading, you're leaving a big gap up front. and what we have seep in the last several years, in particular in the last several months, is a number of regional countries rushing to fill that gap. i think the president honestly and the people around him, their idea of leading are from behind was that everything that had happened before, you know, america's leadership in the world, george bush, was creating a more difficult and destabilized world. so they thought if they could take america down a notch, then everybody would be sort of equal, and then we would have some, usher in this era of global governance and global community, and it's been an unmitigated disaster. if i ask you to raise your hands, how many of you think thatter in an era of greater tranquility in the globe? [laughter] yeah, well, you're all really smart. nobody raised their hands, and

you're right. i want to go around the world and do a quick sort of summary of why we've got a lot of problems in various regions of the world and what i think may be the way out of it. so if you look at what's happened in the last 72 hours, yesterday we had the russian, two days ago we had russian forces in eastern ukraine shoot a civilian airliner out of the air. i don't think they would have done that, i don't think the russians would have been in eastern ukraine without a sense that the united states had withdrawn from its -- and abdicated its leadership role in the world. we also then in the afternoon on thursday afternoon israel went into gaza to try to destroy the tunnels that have been plaguing israel's security. so it went into gaza, addressed the hamas military threats. i don't think we would have hamas be as bold as they have been and certainly not as well supplied from iran without a sense that america wasn't going to do anything about it.

so those are two very stark examples in the last 72 hours of america's withdrawal from leadership in the world. but i think it's bigger than that. as i go around the world in a quick tour of the global crises, look at iraq and syria. isis, it's a more radical form, believe it or not, than al-qaeda. it's the islamic state of iraq and syria which they've now just renamed themselves the islamic state. it's in part of syria, it's in part of iraq, it's robbed a bank, it's the richest terrorist group in the world, probably $2 billion under their belt. they've seized oil fields so that they're going to have replenishment of that money in the years to come, and their goal is to expand in the middle east. so they've said jordan next, lebanon, we're looking at the sinai peninsula. so al-qaeda, even though the president has said a year ago, two years ago al-qaeda is, you know, on the run, we got bin laden, they're on the ropes, in

fact, al-qaeda is in more countries and in bigger strengths than ever before. so they are now throughout the levant in the middle east, they are in yemen, they are in north africa, they are in somalia, they are in nigeria with boko haram, and to me, the most upsetting from our security standpoint, is two things. one, they have a new leader, a very charismatic guy who probably will be the man who inherits the mantle of osama bin laden. and, two, there are somewhere between 2-4,000 fighters in iraq and syria who carry american and european passports. they have vowed that next stop, new york. in fact, the guy who is the new, charismatic leader -- al-baghdadi, he now called himself the cay live -- when he was several years ago in american custody he said when he left, see you in new york. so their objective is to come to, cause terrorist activities not only in the region, but in the united states and europe. and they now have the means to

do that because if you have a european passport, you can enter the united states easily. because we have a very porous southern border, people without american passports can enter the united states easily. so as much as we think that this global governance era of tranquility, in fact, i think al-qaeda -- which comets to present an enormous -- continues to present an enormous threat to the united states, that threat is going to continue to grow. the second part is iran. in the last 24 hours, the nuclear negotiations we've been having in vienna have just sort of failed, and we've had a six month extension. we will negotiate with iran for the next six months to dismantle their nuclear program, but the iranians have basically said we're not dismantling a darn thing. we want you to relieve the sanctions on us so that our economy can improve, but we have no intention of dismantling our nuclear program. there are now spinning in iran

more centrifuges than we have starbucks in america. and the supreme leader of iran, the guy who really makes the decisions, he has said that's not enough, they'd like ten times as many. so we now see iraq, an iraq where al-qaeda now aseven adapt, we see an iran which is very emboldened. they think they've gotten a terrific deal with the united states, i think they're probably right. so then let's go to israel/hamas. we've just seen israel go into the gaza strip. we've seen hamas, very well supplied by iran, continuing its assault against israel. i don't think iran and their clients, hamas, have any intention of defeating israel on the battlefield. they know they can't do that. they know that if they lob rockets into israel, israel has created this new missile defense system called the iron dome. they'll defeat that. they know if they dig tunnels under the ground, the israelis will collapse the tunnels. what they do know, however, is

that they can win in the court of world public opinion. and that's why if this conflict that just started yesterday between israel and gaza and hamas on the gaza strip continues for a week to ten days -- which i think it will -- you will see world public opinion turn against israel. hamas understands that if they have enough casualties, if they can show the world this is terrible, israel is killing our civilians, our women and our children, that the world public opinion turns against israel, israel becomes more isolated. i think their ultimate goal is to drive a wedge between the united states and israel. not great for this era of global tranquility. then i think if you move further, afghanistan. ..

and if you take it further north, it includes south korea and japan. those countries are extremely nervous what they see as american abdication of the region and american leadership role in the pacific. let's sort of fling forward to europe. actually before we go to europe, go to the southern border and look at mexico. we don't have a southern border anymore. as a national security person, i'm concerned with an immigration problem, public health problem, those are all problems. we can solve those problems.

it will take time, it will take money and we can solve them. what we can't solve if that porous southern border with people coming through that porous southern border instead of a backpack, they have a backpack bomb, or instead of young people, childrenning coming across, you have young suicide bombers coming across. the fact we have seen on the american side of the rio grande, prayer rugs, dictionaries, english hurdu, is the language that the taliban speak, translations and we now have indications that there are, in the groups that are coming across the southern border there are pop races coming from very dangerous places, pakistan, afghanistan, somalia. that is my concern, in the porous southern border comes across, not just people who say, i want to take down the world trade center, but numbers about people who could come across the united states. they're experienced fighters. they know what they're doing.

they could marry up with american passport holders. you could see five years from now, three years from now, eight years from now, you could see sustained and continuous terrorist attacks on the united states. not big ones, but little once. that is almost as dangerous as little ones. if there were 10 simultaneous attacks across the country, we stay home and hide under the bed. there is another period with real danger in the southern border. i want to flip across the atlantic and go to europe. our relations with europeans are great nato allies, they're very bad. the germans who are supposed to be our great allies won't even talk to the white house and administration. angela merkel, who has been a stalwart success in the european union, economically, politically, we spied on her and we never apologized afterwards. so our relations on allies that we have in the past relied on,

those are frayed. i think i will finally end with my tour of the happy world with the situation with russia. vladmir putin, i think has various ambitions but what we've seen in the last several is his real ambition which is to reclaim the soviet empire. he gave a speech when i annexed, when russia annexed crimea several months ago. and it was for me a wake-up call the i was one of those people who thought maybe we could do a deal with putin down the road if we could give him what he wanted and what we wanted which is cooperation over iran's nuclear program but he gave a speech which shook me up a little bit. he spoke in the great hall of the people, the grand kremlin palace, to 400 top leaders of russia and amidst the beautiful chandeliers and gold leaf on the walls and place where czars held

court and soviet leadership held court before he gave a impassioned speech saying we're annexing crimea and we're holding the west responsible. americans lied to us. americans cheated us. americans stole from us. it was impassioned and all the people who were listening stood on their chairs and crying and cheering. they were shouting. what i understood at that point any sense of accommodation with the russians probably isn't going to happen. and probably not with this leadership. they have a very different goal. then when the russians put in not just troops along the border with ukraine but had troops inside of ukraine, to me followed on very naturally what putin said to his own people. i was in ukraine five weeks ago. i went to kiev just after the election and met with the chief of staff of military and against leaders and you guys don't get

it, we have been invaded. the russians have troops along the border. but they also sent troops and tanks in. they're not wearing russian uniforms. they ripped the insignia off. they wear brown shirts. they call them the brown shirts. they sent in tanks and aircraft and various high levels of ammunition and munitions and artillery. and they rubbed markings off the side. but we have been invaded. the russians will tell you, they have nothing to do with this. this is ethnic russians in eastern ukraine like the people in crimea wanted to hook up with the mothership. that is not what has been happening. it has been an invasion. what we saw the last 4hours, what happens when the invasion takes root. i think the, not that there is not much good news about a civilian airliner being shot down. the world now understands that the phony war i was hearing about five weeks ago is out in

the open. people understand what put fin is doing. this wasn't just a plan to do it on eastern ukrainian border this was a plan putin had to go country, after country, exciting ethnic russians on the eastern, western border of russia and getting them to leave their areas, to abdicate their citizenship, whether it is in poland or ukraine or georgia or name your country and rejoin russia. now the world knows what he is up to. the question is what will the world do about it? this is alter risk, right? a resurgent russia. iran is about to get nuclear weapons and start a nuclear arms race in the middle east. israel is in a very dangerous position in the middle east. al qaeda has taken over country, oil fields and banks, declaring the fact they want to kill all christians and jews in the birthplace of christianity and. >> stayism. porous southern border --

judaism. it all sound pretty grim, right? how many of you think that america's best days are over? that we are a country on decline? that the world has passed us by? well the majority of american people think that and they're wrong. because, good ol' america, there are two theories of world history. one says that all countries, immutable law of universal law of nature, that countries, they starve, they rise, have their day in the sun and inevitably decline of the other school of thought that america is somehow exempt from this. that we're different. we keep reinventing ourselves because who we are. out of many nationalities because we come together in a difficult system of government that favors and enshrines and encourages entrepreneurialism. ingenuity, invention, risk-taking personal responsibility. that somehow we're exempt from that universal law. i must say i was really a couple years ago thinking the first version.

is that okay? rise, shine, decline. but i have in the last two years, really three years, come to think maybe we are the exceptions and hear's why. not just because as you would listen to republicans, some republicans during the last presidential cycle when they would all stand up in the row, who believes in american exceptionalism and they would say, i believe, i believe. it was like "peter pan," if you put enough fairy dust and think about it hard enough tinkerbell cops back to life. there is fact all basis for thinking that america is in fact with great times ahead. i would say it by saying fracking. colorado, you're at the forefront of this. fracking has been around for a long time, but we in the last three to five years, the united states and americans and only in america would this happen, we have developed the technology to look deep underground, 3d mapping and realize we have a

lot of energy. we also developed technology to drill down deep and horizontally to extract that energy at a reasonable price. what does that do? that is a strategic game-changer, not just is it going to make great jobses in colorado, it's a strategic game-changer i think equivalent of united states winning world war two. here is what will happen, not now, but six years from now. you will have cheap energy. it will create a lot of energy jobs. not just in colorado but western pennsylvania and north dakota. cheap energy jobs across the united states. the second thing because of cheap and inexpensive energy we'll have resurgence and repatriation culled of manufacturing jobs. remember when ross perot ran for president, the giant sucking sound and all jobs leaving america and going to other countries? guess what? they're coming back. and, they're coming back because, great place to do business, right? because they're coming back for

real economic reasons. i met with the two leading, the two heads of the european energy companies. one is total and french energy company and eni is italian one. i said you know, europe will never recover economically because our competitors is america. america, all of sudden whatever the price to manufacture a widget in germany, it will be cheaper to manufacture it in the united states because your energy will be so much less expensive. a factor of seven in you think of japan. so we'll have good energy jobs now. the next round is manufacturing returns to the united states. but then there will be a third round. that is when cheap american energy hooks up with 3d printing, and nanotechnology and bio engineering. we are looking, i think if we make the right political decisions in the next two to three years, we're looking at a 20-year run where the united states will be as prosperous as we just enjoyed with the

technology, computer, high-tech boom. but we have to make the right political decisions. and i don't think we're making those decisions right now. we're certainly not making them in washington. so when i look around the world today, i say, tough times for the next couple of years. resurgent russia, deal with china, open border, nukes with iran. i look beyond that to say america's future is indeed very bright. it is not a given but if we make the right political decisions and pressure our political leaders to make the right decisions then i think the united states, for our children and grandchildren will be very great indeed. to quote my old boss ronald reagan, once again america will be a shining city on the hill. so -- [applause] now you may not realize this but we go way back. we were both working for president nixon. he had a big job working for president nixon because he wrote

president nixon's speeches. i typed them. but we're back again, john. >> but the typist has the ultimate control, kt. [laughter]. >> john, i always knew you were a pretty smart guy. >> once again the woman as the good end. thank you, kt, third time at summit. just keeps getting better. >> thank you. [applause] >> i've been talking about the western conservative summit mobile app. search your app store for that. ipad, iphone, android. get the mobile app and you can get badges for things you've done to be digitally interactive at western conservative summit at 2014. you can get an edmund burke badge. one of found is of conservatism. you can get a reagan badge. you can get a lincoln badge. you can get an andrews or armstrong badge but you can get a margaret thatcher badge.

when i hear kt mcfarland, the spirit of the iron lady, the acumen, the toughness, the wisdom, the fighting spirit, is being channeled and we're very grateful for you, kt. >> thank you. can i tell awe great margaret thatcher story? >> please do. >> margaret thatcher and i got to know each other during the reagan administration. i knew her better than she knew me. when i ran for senate in the new york in 1986, she said when you go to interview take two dresses this is margaret thatcher, who brought down the iron curtain. here is why. you never know what background you have and you want to make sure you look okay. i had a blue dress on earlier. and i just changed. thank you, margaret thatcher. thank you, john. [applause] thanks very much. >> thank you, kt mcfarland.

[applause] >> returning now to capitol hill, house and senate negotiators have agreed on a compromise plan of more than six weeks in talks, to work toward fixing veterans health care programs. chairs of house and senate veterans affairs committees scheduled a news conference today to unveil the plan. we'll have live coverage in 45 minutes, 1:30 eastern time. the house and senate both meeting today for legislative work at 2:00 eastern of the houseworking on 16 bills under suspension of the rules today, including one dealing with air fare fees and one on sanctions against north korea. the senate will vote this afternoon on number of nominations and later this week in the senate, highway funding. you watch live coverage of that debate here on c-span2 and the house over on c-span. one item still on the congressional agenda, how the

u.s. should deal with immigrant children crossing the u.s. border and we're asking you on our facebook page, should congress pass southern border legislation before the august recess? 164 of you say yes. 41 say no. phil is writing in on facebook. he says americans need to get rid of this. do nothing republican congress. this is the worst republican congress in american history and, next week, the do-nothing republican congress will go on vacation with pay for a month and do nothing. shameless. and patricia weighs in as well. then they are only there for 12 days before they go back into recess for the elections. you can respond to two writers and other things on facebook.com/cspan. >> on "the communicators" tonight, two members of congress talk about their technology legislation. >> craft an amendment that says

really this. under 702 of the act, you can collect data and we now know from the snowden disclosures that it is a lot of data, that may also include the information of americans even though that can't be the purpose of the collection of the data. what the amendment simply said was that if you want to search that law fully-acquired database for americans, you should get a warrant. not that you can't get the information. get a warrant. >> the basic premise of the dot-com act is to make sure that when the nation releases its last control oversight over the domain names system that we know what we're getting ourselves into. >> democratic representative from california the zoe lofgren and illinois republican representative john shimkus, tonight 8:00 eastern on "the communicators" on c-span2.

>> next a look at iraq. the senate foreign relations committee recently held a hearing on the situation there. one of the panels included an official from the pentagon, a former cia analyst and a former u.s. ambassador to iraq. this is about 45 minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. acting chairman. to follow up on what we heard this morning, the establishment of the islamic state by isil in iraq and in parts of syria is changing the geostrategy of the entire middle east. it represents a dramatic setback to u.s. policy and interests and requires an immediate response from washington. the situation is complicated by the fact that in the fix we are presently in the middle east, we have not one but two hegemonic, radical, forces in the region. from gaza to iran, that are trying to upset the established order throughout the middle east

and we have to deal with all of them in a comprehensive way. the president's plan to support a unified iraq in this crisis is laid out on june 19th is reasonable. but over a month has gone by as we discussed earlier today and very little has happened. in government formation we had two important but secondary steps,. the selection of a speaker and the selection of a president fromed the kurdish community and those are important but those are basically the preliminaries. thepe key issue is the selection of a prime minister and a new government. meanwhilebu on the ground while theke initial isil drive on baghdad on these strategic ares has been slowed we're seeing new offensive capabilities by that organization. the institute for the study of law came out yesterday with a survey of attacks both suicide,

what we call vbids, vehicle bombs inside of baghdad and efforts to try to cut off the city. senator mccain was right, you can't take baghdad. as almost happened to us with 100,000 troops in 2004 you can isolate the city and they seem too try to do that. meanwhile they're pushing against the kurds along the 400-mile front from the iranian border to north of mosul and they're trying to seize strategic infrastructure. beji we talked about but also the haditha dam west of ramadi and the mosul dam on the tigris river to the northeast of mosul. these are extraordinarily important infrastructure targets for them. so we do have an offensive threat from that organization. the president's plan is based upon, above all, a new inclusive government. as i said, while we've done the preliminary with the speaker and with the president we haven't gotten to the key issue who will

govern the country. the prime minister essentially governs the country. in my view the exclusive government that the president correctly said is prerequisite to any real action can not be a government headed by prime minister maliki. he simply has not shown the ability to bring in the kurdish and sunni communities. and is needed right now because there is a huge division of both trust and geographic division in the country today. we also need to encourage the kurds, as mr. mcgurk described in some detail to remain within the republic and try to regain trust among the sunnis. i see this is only possible if we have a new prime minister and a new government. simultaneously i think while the president is right we can not do a major campaign until we get an inclusive government that can provide essentiallyan people on the ground, local forces, we need to do limited strikes. general dempsey talked about some of the possibilities going

afterl key leaders and strategic infrastructure. we need to do t a little bit of that now in part to encourage everybody to come together. mr. mcgurk talked about the sunni tribes that are outgunned by, thatwe are trying to fight isis but they're outgunned. helping them would not be undercutting a new government. the kurds are fighting along the front. they need help. we heard about some of these highly-trained, effective iraqi units still in the fight, particularly not from baghdad. they could benefit from help too. we're striking al qaeda right now ine pakistan, yemen and direct actions at times in somalia and libya. i see no reason why we couldn't and we have targets and getting the data now start doing strikes in both iraq and syria. meanwhile we have to be ready though, ift this doesn't work out, if the iranians remain influentialal in baghdad. if mr. maliki remains in power,

if the groups can not come together we'll have to start how do we deal if we do have three separate entities, a kurdistan that will be a magnet for kurds throughout the region, a effectively taliban-like islamic state in in the middle of the lt haven'tef and iraq ever more unr the control or under the influence of iran. that is huge new problem for us if we don't act real quickly. my bottom line today, sir, we need n to act as quickly as we can. >> thank you, ambassador jeffrey. general barbero. >> thanksi you, mr. acting chairman,qu ranking member cork. thank you for the opportunity to discuss this situation in iraq and some options moving forward. i will focus my comments on the security sector, iraqi security forces and recommendations therein. i would like to start with several observations on the current situation. time accrues to the benefit of

isis. while we assesses they maintain momentum and they grow stronger and hold on the population intensifies. isis established control across a contiguous area in both syria and iraq. as we discussed in a previous panel we must consider it as a iraq-syria front. isis poses a formidable regional threat. as they swept into iraq they continued expansion in syria. they didn't have to thin lines to do that. iraqi securityed forces have regrouped. however these forces have serious fundamental flaws and will require significant assistance to undertake a counter off offensive to roll control. finally isis is existentialal threat to both back dad and the kurds. the kurds have a 1000-kilometer front or border with isis and they're largely on their own. chairman menendez asked at the outset, what is required to turn back the tied tide of isis?

it is clearly the iraqi security forces. they can not successfully meet this isis threat let alone launch a major counter offensive without significant assistance. they will not likely materialize on their own and i'm not talking in the future about ground combat forces from the united states. i'm talking about advising and assisting in certain key areas. let me cover those. the first is intelligence. we've started that. developing tactical intelligence and targetable actionable intelligence on the ground. we started that. now we need to turn that into action the. but the second intelligence component is the isis network in iraq, syria and their regional supporters must be a national collection and analysis priority for our entire intelligence community. second, we should establish a training program for isf to develop sufficient combined arms capabilityco in order to

effectively offensive operations to dislodge isis from the areas they now control. the isf has been largely a check point army. since 2011 their operations have been defensive in nature. static iny disposition and disjointed in execution. they need training. third, they need assistance in establishing an effective war-time sustainment structure and process. their existing one is a peacetime system and they have experienced significantta declie in equipmentct readiness over te years. this will be a daunting process but it can be done. fourth, they require changes to their command-and-control network. asnt we know the system now in place is one put in by prime minister maliki of area command, directly reporting to him. as we have seen there needs to be changes in commanders and changes to develop an effective combat command-and-control capability. fifth, the isf continues to need weapons and equipment.

we have done some good work to rush some equipment there but we need to do more. just this week iraq's ambassador from the united statest lamentd slow pace of our support when compared to rapid support from iran and russia. we should quickly approve shipping support to iraq. sixth weom should support the if airstrikes in order to degrade isis capabilities. let me be clear you can not airstrike or drone strike your way out ofad this. airstrikes must be part of a cohesive and coherent counter offensive in order to attack isis. 7th, we should support the kurd and enable them to defend against the existential threat from isis. peshmerga are slightly armed and underequipped. they are stretched very thin. when isis turns on them they will be outgunned and overmatched. now there is a complex relationship between baghdad and rubil. i understand that.

but why wouldn't we from a purely tactical and security perspective, why wouldn't we rapidly enable the kurd to defend northern iraq from isis, prevent the oil-rich north from falling into isis hand and force isis to fight on two fronts in iraq? finally this all depend on two things. ant willing partner in baghdad that is willing to accept these changes and help develop an effective isf. second as we all discussed there must be the political climate where the sunnis and kurd feel they could have accommodation for them and join in unified military action n conclusion it is a existential threat to iraq. the longer we await to decide on iraq's request for support, the stronger they become. finally if prevention of isis controlled iraq is in the national interests of the united states, then we should act to aid and enable iraq and the kurds to defeat this threat as quickly as possible. thank you, mr. chairman, for the opportunity. >> thank you, general barbero.

dr. pollack. >> thank you, chairman. mr. chairman k, senator, alwaysa great honor to appear before this. committee. i want to start by talking a little bit some of the realities we face in iraq because i think they're critical understanding where we are and what the possibilities are moving forward. and i want to talk about two. first we need to recognize american's influence in iraq has significantly of the to the point where i would argue at this point the united states interests exceed our influence. second we need to come to grips with the fact that what we face in iraq today is a civil war. iraq is not on the brink. it is not sliding into it. it is a civil war and the dynamics of intercommunal civil wars now apply. those make intervention by third powers very difficult. with that in mind i think that the current approach of the administration with a few tweaks is probably the best one plausible. it is the only one. that is the idea of forging a new political leadership and reforming iraq's political

system. it isbl i only option that we he that does offer the prospect of ending iraq's civil war in matter months, rather than years. and preserving american interests in a whole variety of other ways. nevertheless we need 20 recognize to be very difficult. it goes well beyond merely replacing the current iraqi political leadership. it is going to mean restructuring iraq's politics in a way that will encompass the desires and aspirations and the fears ofer all of iraq's communities and that is not growing to be easy. . . communities and that is not going to be easy. if it fails, iraq's civil war is going to roll on and, as i've already suggested, the dynamics of a civil war is going to take hold and those are very hard to break. but we will have some options. unfortunately, those options are all awful. i think the first one is to

recognize as any number of us, some of the senators have made the point earlier that iraq and syria are now a single civil war. and the problem that we'll face in iraq is that we will have a very complex situation, we will be looking to support both moderate sunnis and shia against their extremists and hoping to fchl orge a new peace between them. that's very hard. syria offers clarity in that we hate the regime and are not willing to support them at all and that opens up a syria first policy by which we build a new syrian opposition party which can defeat the extremists and stabilize a bridge and a model to sunni moderates inside of iraq. i see that option as entirely feasible but it is not guaranteed to work and it is several steps beyond what the united states has been willing to consider so far. in fact, it will take years, if it works at all, and it will require a commitment of

resources, probably including air power that the u.s. has so far been unwilling to make. if we're not willing to commit those -- that level of resources to actually bring the civil war to a close, another option is partition, something that has been talked about very frequently. i will say that i think that if we don't bring this to a rapid close, we will find that partition is the de-facto outcome in iraq. it will be divided into a sunni stand and shia stand and the kurds will undoubtedly go their own way. the question for us would be, can we find ways to turn de-facto partition and somehow use it to bring about peace. again, i think that's problem but nevertheless, it will be extremely difficult. far more difficult than the pundits around town are making it out to be. i would say that if there's a dangerous mythology suggesting that the partition of iraq could be easy and relatively

bluntless. in fact, the communities remain intermingled and the different militias have made claims on territory held by the others. the fear that overwhelms iraqis remain and dividing up the oil and water and other resources is going to be extremely difficult. it will take years and hundreds of thousands of lives lost. and the last alternative that we will have will be to follow a policy of containment, of trying to prevent the spillover from the iraqi/syrian civil war to other neighbors and from harming american interests in the region in that way. again, it's certainly a possible alternative for the united states but we need to remember that containment is exceptionally difficult. it has rarely succeeded in the past and i think the fall of mosul is probably the most graphic illustration of just how hard it is to contain the civil war -- the spillover from one

civil war from affecting another. the last point i'd make is simply to do nothing would be the worst choice of all. thank you very much. >> well, thank you all for your testimony and, i'm sorry, i had to step out but we had the benefit of having your testimony in advance. so let me ask you, ambassador jeffrey, if maliki is the problem and maliki somehow rises to be the prime minister again, what's the course of events for us? >> first of all, it's not going to be easy for them to hang on as prime minister. it will be easy of at least part of the sunni community and part of the kurdish community to get above the 165 that is needed. what i fear is that there will

be a long delay and that's what we had in 2010 where he'll be the acting prime minister for many months and people will get more discouraged. i think the first thing is for us to press for this process to go forward. because i think that most iraqis, including many of the shia parties believe they need a new leader. if he does stay in power, then our options are far more along the lines that dr. pollack has mentioned at the end of the problem in dealing with iraq and syria, from jordan, from kurdistan and turkey to the extent that's possible, to both try to contain the anger and go after some of these isil elements that are threatening us or threatening the stability of the region. it will be very hard to work with a government in baghdad that does not have the buy-in of the sunnis and the kurds and

will not be possible to assist in any retakeover of the sunni areas by an army that does not represent of the people of the region. >> and if the flipside of that happens, that, in fact, he does not continue as prime minister, what are the immediate things that the next government will have to do in order to create the type of national unity that can fight isis and not have the ability to disintegrate. >> i have my own list, we have our own list and iraqis have their own list as well. there has to be a deal on oil. brett mcgurk has talked about some of the options. they are ready, they are on the shelf and it will give them an overall slice of resources while bringing them back into the system. that's real important. there needs to be real revenue sharing. they've already tried this.

up until recently, the kurds were getting 17%. some of the either oil-producing provinces, kirkuk, are those with a lot of pilgrims and they are getting slices of the iraqi government budget to execute their own programs and they were very, very successful. there's a model also on the shelf to have more economic federalism. so it's not just a list of things. if you want inclusiveness, you get a guy that lacks inclusiveness. that will do any more economic plan. if you want a more economic i can federalism, you introduce financial and energy policies that will see to that. if you want to have a security force that is capable of doing what general barbero said, let's have commanding control which is

the no the case now. >> dr. pollack, do you have anything to add? >> i think the united states needs to do a molot more to mak clear what we would do to help them if they actually took the steps that we are looking for. right now, my sense from iraqis is we're demanding a great deal from them but we're not actually letting them know what we would do for them if we took what are actually very difficult steps. that gets to ambassador jeffrey's point about how we need to be pressuring them and pushing this process forward. getting rid of prime minister maliki is going to be very difficult and i think the iraqis need to understand in much more concrete terms, rather than the more vague promises that they seem to be hearing from the administration about what they would get if they did it. >> chairman bchl arbero, i am really hesitant to continue to authorize sales or to approve

sales -- it's the administration to authorize them -- but to approve sales when i see what has happened so far with very critical arm ma meant that has fallen into the hands of isis as a result of it being abandoned on the battlefield. so how -- in light of your comments that we need to respond to iraqi's request for help, which i assume in part is possibly air strikes but also they are looking for equipment, how do we create the safeguards so that if we're going to help we don't end up having our weaponry fall in the hands of isis and use the forces that we want to defeat them? >> it's it will just happen. >> but not to the tune -- >> no, i agree. i think from this assessment we look at which are the good units

of the iraqi security forces and we invest heavily in them with advice, training, whatever they need. and then take a hard look at what they are asked for and what we are willing to share with them and make some decisions. but a senior iraqi leader last week said to me, where is america? russians are supporting us. we want americans, you're our friends. they have three fixed wing aircraft to shoot hell fires. you can't, as i said, air strike your way out of this. i would pick the right units from this assessment and i would invest in them with the weapons and equipment that we feel -- that would help. >> well, i would say to the iraqis, billions of dollars,

hundreds of lives, that's where america has been. and and i would also remind you that they were unwilling to pursue a status of forces agreement which might have created the wherewithal to continue to solidify the iraqi security forces. and so i think they have to think about the decisions that they have made not to relive them but to instruct them moving forward. senator corker? >> thank you, mr. chairman. and again, thank you for being here. i think a lot of times our second panels are actually better than the first. but by that time people have other business. thank you so much for your help. dr. pollack, you responded when

senator menendez just mentioned that they were unwilling to pursue a status of forces agreement. i'm just wondering what you were hoping to say but did it instead with an expression. >> yeah. i think that what was going through my head, both the united states and iraq failed each other and themselves. it was a moment when i think that prime minister maliki was, at best, ambivalent and history has proven would have been beneficial to him. and the united states was ambivalent itself about whether it wanted to stay. >> and our focus needs to be on the future but i know ambassador jeffrey has had a give and take publicly in writing about this. is that your impression of what happened during that time? just very brefly. i want to move on to other things. >> very briefly, the administration following the recommendation of its military

leaders and my recommendation in 2010 offered to keep troops on. in essence, the maliki government and most of the political parties agreed to have troops that got hung up on the question of a status of forces agreement. al maliki was reluctant to do this. controlling the sunnis in government said he would not move any further than maliki would move that undercut how we had done the deal back in 2008 when we had gotten the earlier agreement and, frankly, time ran out. in terms of how enthusiastic the administration was about it, i had my instructions which were to try to get an agreement. >> so i noticed -- thank you both for that clarification. there's been a discussion of the order of steps that need to take place and there's been a heavy emphasis on getting the right political situation. i think all of you agree with that. some of you would like to see us

go ahead and take some steps now. let me ask you, general, what do you think -- what are some of the elements of debate that are taking place now relative to -- if you were guessing and my guess is that you actually talked with some of these people from time to time. but prior to us knowing if they are going to have an inclusive government, someone other than maliki, what do you think are some of the elements of the debate that are taking place inside the administration relative to taking some small steps, not something sustained but some of the small steps that i think y'all mentioned might build morale at a minimum and will stave some of the steps that isil are taking. >> i think there's been a reliance on this as miss slotkin said in a process. this process has, in my view,

become a way to not take action. and we're in a situation where isis, as i said, is threat and they are gaining strength. i think there's been discussion of air strikes. and you can't take air strikes on targets without having precision if you see the entities out in the desert. that will only be for fleeting effect. just doing air strikes or drone strikes can have some effect and it won't be lasting or decisive. i think there is great reluctance to put -- reintroduce american forces. i get that. i understand. but if this is an exestential threat and if the iraqis

security forces are the way to deal with this and these iraqi security forces are not prepared or capable of dealing with it, you can't close that circle without external help to these forces. i hope it's not a question of if we should support the iraqi security forces and introduce the steps that i said is a question of when and now and we've had this assessment, how quickly. >> so the fear would be paralysis through purposeful, long-term analysis, that would be the fear, just analyzing this forever and not taking action and i also agree with you, there is some reticence to get involved militarily. let me ask you this. maliki, obviously a -- he may not have been a good prime minister but he understands the debate taking place in our

country and knows that him being gone, while we might not have laid out -- and it's a great comment, for y'all to share specifically what they would do if they have this inclusive government. i think that's a great point. but is there -- can you tell if there's any leveraging taking place by maliki right now knowing that we're not going to get involved in any kind of big way if he's still there? is there any activity that is occurring there relative to him trying to leverage us in other ways? >> dr. pollack might have information as well. i think, first of all, he points out correctly that he did very well in the last elections several months ago, winning personally 700,000 votes, which is more than he did in 2010. his party came in first. under the constitution, he should be given by the new

president selected today within 15 days an opportunity to form a government. and under the constitutional process, if he can't form it and i think it will be hard for him to form it after 30 days, the mandate has to pass to another party. now, that's a lot of time to consume doing this. i think that, as a minimum, he's going to want to play this out. and he also may feel that, in the end, the americans having sent -- what was it, 775 additional forces to iraq -- are ready to help them out regardless of what happens. again, i think i and many others have said, under certain circumstances, striking isil where they pose a danger is important. but we cannot provide the whole gamut, the whole breadth of support that they need absolutely unless we have an inclusive government that can bring in the sunnis and the

kurds and it won't happen with him, sir. >> just one more question. my time is up and i know all of us probably have to be places. but there was discussion and y'all said this about being a regional approach. and syria and iraq obviously having no border between them anymore, what are some of the dynamics on the syrian side that as we look at this regionally -- i know y'all are just focused on iraq now -- that complicate with the side being in power there, complicate our ability to look at it regionally? >> i'm glad to start, senator. i think one of the most obvious problems is the one that i've already mentioned, which is that when you look obama nly at syri do not like the assad regime, we want it gone, then the question is to how best help the

opposition. when you look at iraq, you have a situation where you have a shia group in charge of the government, they are likely to remain in charge of the government and we're going to want to remain good ties with that. simultaneously, we have a sunni operation that we do not like and others that we very much like. there's a complexity that is involved. any support to one of these groups becomes complicated by the opposite effect that it has with the other. if we're providing enormous support to sunni in syria, some of that is going to flow to sunni groups in iraq, some of whom we may not like. but more that we are helping the maliki government in baghdad, the more it's going to be seen by folks in the region of supporting the wider shia cause which also encompasses the assad government. we need to recognize the

complexity that's been introduced by having wars in iraq and syria that are by in large merged which the region sees as a sunni/shia fight but we see in a much more complex way. >> would you like to add to that? >> if i could, senator. as far as a regional support, we know that -- isis is washing money. but the way to choke these organizations is to go after their financing. now, for the near term, they've got plenty of that. however, we know that there are regional actors supporting them, supporting isis. we should employ, as i said in my statement, our intelligence committee to em employee those actors and use every tool, department of commerce, department of treasury, to go after those actors and these sources of funding. we know, have a good idea where it's coming from, let's identify them and target them as part of a regional approach to this growing problem. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

thank you all for being here. one last set of questions. general, you served in iraq, you led our mission to a train and equipped iraqi forces and when u.s. forces left iraq, it seemed that iraqi forces were on their way to becoming a capable force. so the question that begs the question, what happened? why did the isf's capability and capacity erode so quickly? >> senator, tough question. and it's tough to see what has happened and what has happened over the last few years. i've been to iraq many times over the last year since i left active duty. but the isf was built to handle a low level insurgency and our goal was to get them to where they were good enough.

frankly, when i was there in 2009 and 2010 and part of 2011, there would be advisers to continue the training. we knew -- i did an assessment in 2010 for then for the general and this is where the forces will be in 2011. we wanted to convince them and show them the capabilities and shortfalls of their forces. some were very obvious. they couldn't control their own air space nor defend it. but we said, you have a sustainment problem. your military readiness is in a death spiral. your command control structure is not workable. this peace time for a command

and control of the population directly to the prime minister has to change. you do not have an nco core. most fundamentally, we told iraqis, you must invest in training. good armies train continuously. we didn't see that before we left and i don't see any evidence of that since then. so, you know, the short answer is that the development that needs to take place with the iraqi security forces from december 2011 to july 2014 hasn't taken place. we can go back and forth about advisers and trainers but they have not -- >> and so if that is the case, what will advisers now be able to do at this stage that will make a difference on the ground with iraqi forces? >> well, when we were on the ground with them and advising

and training, it did make a d s difference. first, we can stop the bleeding. they are under severe duress. isis did not let up. if this is a -- in our interests, then we need to get something in there to, a, stop the bleeding, and then start building the forces. this is not going to take weeks or months. this is going to take a while to get them to a state. as i said in my comments, unless we have an iraqi government that's willing to accept these changes and willing to place these changes into their structure and the way they do business, then i would question whether we should do it. >> two last questions. can air strikes alone -- i think you alluded to this in your answer to senator corker's

questions. but can air strikes alone make a difference in pushing back isis or would doing them now just be, in essence, giving the iraqis a boost? >> air strikes can make a difference, a tactical difference. they can help enable iraqi forces. they can help relieve pressure. they can help degrade isis' capabilities. my point is, we cannot think that just through air strikes and drone strikes we can solve this problem. or i would even hold it in advance. it could -- they would make a difference. it would not be a divisive difference. >> and so the flip -- the other side of this, then, is the training and assist so that the -- but the iraqi forces, can they possibly recover the country even with the training

and assisting? >> i think they could. >> you think they could? >> i think they could. >> we're talking about what period of time? >> months. that's not going to happen overnight. >> senator, if i could support general barbero, i've seen it myself, i was in vietnam as an army officer in '72. the vietnamese army invaded for the first time and started melting mosul. billions of dollars of u.s. equipment was lost within days. then when we started air strikes, it changed the psychology of those forces almost overnight and within three months they had recovered almost the entire country. we saw in libya, kosovo and bosnia where air strikes can provide lightly equipped, sometimes not too well trained forces. the difference in taking on

better equipped forces as brett mcgurk i think three times described earlier today, dealing with the tribe up near mosul, dealing with the people and governor they are outgunned. they have volunteers to go into northern falluja but they are out numbered. not boots on the ground can make a huge difference, sir. >> one last question for you, general. are you surprised by the alarming reports of iraqi security forces, abuses, infiltration by shia militia and lack of accountability and how do we engage with the iraqi forces to deal with those challenges? >> senator, i was in irbil,

baghdad, in late may. the developments of mosul since then was a shock. i was shocked by it. but as i drive around baghdad or basra or other places over the last year, it's a checkpoint army. and i've said that. and you cannot take on an isis if you've been in static position on the defense and not trained for offensive operations. what is troubling, as you ride up to these army checkpoints, there are shia religious banners almost at every one, across baghdad and certainly in basra. there must be a fundamental change in the nature of these forces, not only in the government but in the forces to allow participation by a sunni and kurds in this unified effort that it would require. >> well, i appreciate your insights. i'm not a military guy, but i will say that when an american

soldier volunteers, joins, he fights for a cause, for a principle, for a set of values. he fights for his nation. he or she fights for their nation. if the job is just a job, then it doesn't turn out the same way. and if it's difficult to get an iraqi army if you don't feel you are fighting for the totality of a country, shia, sunny, and kurd. and that's a real problem and that's a real problem. anyhow, i appreciate all of your insights as we grapple with the choices we have to make. this record will remain open until the close of business tomorrow with the thanks of this committee, this hearing is >> and we head live now to capitol

hill. the house and senate holding a news conference on the compromise plan for veterans health care. the chairs of the house and senate v.a. committees. >> this v.a. conference committee legislation that we are bringing forward today is far from what i would have written if i had to do it alone, and i suspect it's fair to say it is far from what chairman miller would have done if he wrote this bill by himself. it is a compromise legislation, there's been give and take on both sides, and let me be very clear that i strongly support what we have come up with. this bill makes certain that we address the immediate crisis of veterans being forced on to long waiting lines for health care. it strengthens the v.a. so that it will be able to hire the doctors, nurses and other medical personnel it needs so that we can put a permanent end to long waiting lists. it addresses the very serious

problems of accountability and makes certain that dishonest and incompetent senior officials at the v.a. to not remain employed there, and in addition, it provides some other significant benefits for veterans and their families. funding for veterans' needs must be considered a cost of war and appropriated as emergency spending. planes and tanks and guns are a cost of war, so is taking care of the men and women who use those weapons and who fight our battles. this was the funding mechanism contained in the sanders-mccain bill which passed the senate with 93 votes, and it is the funding mechanism in this bill. sufficient sums of money must be provided so that the v.a. has the resources to immediately end unacceptably long waiting periods in many v.a. facilities throughout the country. this bill does that by contracting out with private

medical providers, community health centers, department of defense facilities, etc., and this is something that was contained in the house bill. and we basically accept that language. disagreement consistent with the sanders-mccain bill allows veterans who live 40 miles or more from the v.a. facility to get their health care outside hofstra, and i think what we appreciate, you live 100 miles away and you're sick, you should be able to go to a provider in your community. this bill in terms of dollars provides some $10 billion for contracting out of health care and for those veterans who live 40 miles or more away, $10 billion. acting v.a. secretary sloan gibson and many of the veterans' organizations have made it clear that we need to make sure the v.a. has the doctors, the nurses, the medical personnel and the space they need. this bill provides $5 billion for the v.a. to strengthen their capabilities.

this legislation consistent with bills passed in the house, i think unanimously, and in the senate is part of sanders-mccain, authorizes funding for the v.a. to into -- into leases at 27 major facilities in 18 statements and puerto rico, that will cost about a billion and a half dollars. we have all been outraged by the data and so forth. this bill contains language which will allow the secretary to fire people immediately who are doing, who are underperforming, who are lying. it gives them a 21-day period of appeal without pay during that period. this bill also contains some other provisions included in sanders-mccain. it improves delivery of care to veterans who experience sexual trauma while serving in the military. it expands the scholarship program to include surviving

spouses of members of the armed forces who died in the line of duty, and it also lets all veterans qualify for in-state tuition under the post-9/11 g.i. bill. and it also extends the program regarding tbi. in terms of money, this bill will provide $17 billion into v.a. health care. there's a $5 billion offset within the v.a., approximately $12 billion of new money. so this has been a very difficult process, and it takes place, chairman miller and i, working within the context of philosophically the house and the senate being very different institutions, looking at the world very differently. a lot of partisanship going on. it has been a very, very difficult process, and i want to thank chairman miller very much. i think from day one he understood that it is absolutely imperative that we get this bill done and we get it done now before the august break. it certainly would not have happened without his determination and his hard work, and i thank him very much for that. chairman?

>> thank you very much to my friend, the chairman of the senate committee. it goes without saying we have a v.a. that is in crisis today. this agreement will go a long way to helping resolve the crisis that exists out there today. helping to get veterans off of waiting lists is extremely important, and this bill does that. it also holds people within the d. accountable -- within the department accountable. that's something that both bodies wanted to do. if i'd have written this, the secretary would have had the ability to fire the top seen-level individuals -- senior-level individuals without an appeal. senator sanders wanted an appeal in there, and this is a compromise that we've been able to reach. we have been working on this diligently from the days that this has passed both bodies. the fact that there has been little action or movement for a long period of time, i think, was exaggerated. senator sanders and i, among

other members of the conference committees, have worked very diligently to try to bring this into closure before we left for the august recess, and that has always been the deadline that we had set to be able to get this bill passed by both houses before we went home. the other thing it does is it starts a conversation, i think, about v.a. for the future. senator sanders and i differ about certain things, but one thing that we do agree about is that the veterans of this country deserve the best quality health care that they can get in a timely fashion, and that has not been the case as of late. as i said in my opening statement with acting secretary gibson in our committee the other day, the v.a. is not sacred, the veteran is. and that's the most important thing for all of us to remember as we have gone through this process. we still have to have it approved by the conference

committee and then, of course, both houses. the house leaves on thursday, the senate, i believe, on friday. so that, i say thank you to my good friend, senator sanders, for working in good faith throughout the entire process, and i look forward to moving this in the house. >> chairman? >> you've got two chairmen here, any particular one you want? >> they want the chairman. >> how do you keep costs from spiraling out of control when suddenly thousands of veterans are getting their health care outside the system? >> you want to -- >> we both have different answers, i'm sure. [laughter] >> i'd love to hear both. >> well, i'm not going into a philosophical debate. what this legislation is doing is appropriating $10 billion for veterans who are currently enrolled in the v.a. both to get emergency care if they go to a facility and there's a long waiting line, they're going to go to a private doctor, community health center or else.

in addition to that, if you're living more than 40 miles away, you will be able to get the health care you need in your community. we've got $10 billion appropriated. it may well be that at some point in the future we will need more money, and that's the debate we're going to have to have when we cross that bridge. >> and i would say that, again, the biggest issue that we had to confront was the cbo score that was given on both the house and the senate bill. as we began the strong negotiations, e -- we went to the senate bill which was 35 billion, and i don't believe any of us believe it's going to cost that much. >> right. >> so what the house said as we began talking with the senator was we believe it will be less than the first-year cost of 10 billion, and we're willing to lock that thurm in, and it will continue -- that number in, and it will continue as long as that money is there. i don't believe that there will be a flight of all of the veterans out of the system, but

we don't know until we start this program to see how veterans are actually going to act. and this first year is going to give us a good benchmark with which to be able to set the future of this program forward. the other thing i think that we all agree on is that one of the important things in our bill was to have a commission that would go through and independently look at the department of veterans affairs from top to bottom. the v.a. will tell us they need more money and more people, but what they won't do is help us understand what efficiencies can be found within the system. are doctors seeing patients as they should? is there space being used adequately? do they need to close and only see people during the normal business hours? so there are a lot of things that we're going to find out in the next year that, hopefully, will change the way v.a. delivers health care. >> let me just say i agree with what the chairman said. in addition, we hope that with

more doctors and nurses and space coming in, the v.a. system itself will be able to accommodate more veterans in a timely matter. yes, sir. >> this question's actually a two-part question mostly for mr. miller, but you can weigh in here. you said you don't believe there will be a flight out of the system. how can you be assured that people will come back into the system? the second part of this, and you talked about the trouble with the cbo score here. still this price tag is pretty hefty, will that fly in the house of representatives where you have so many tea party conservatives concerned about that bottom line? >> i believe it will. as we discussed in our conference throughout this process, taking care of our veterans is not an inexpensive proposition, and our members understand that. this is not a process in which we found ourselves because of congress' hack of oversight -- lack of oversight, because oversight's what actually brought this to the table. we have a serious problem that

needs to be resolved. the v.a. has caused this problem, and one of the ways that we can help solve it is to give veterans a choice, a choice to stay in the system or a choice to go out of the system. there may be folks that actually will not come back into the system. they may want to stay. there are a lot of veterans that don't go to the v.a. right now because they have the ability to seek their health care somewhere else. and i think we will begin to see what that number is. v.a. always says 90% plus of the people in the system are satisfied. well, here's a great way to test it, because if they are, you would expect 90% will stay in the system. >> [inaudible] sir, i wondered if i could ask you is the $10 billion offset -- >> no. no, the $10 billion is mandatory emergency money. the additional money we do have offsets, and if additional money is needed, it will have to be done through the normal

appropriations process subject to the bca -- >> allowing the deficit to rise in this case? >> because the veterans need quick response, and this is the way that we need to be able to make sure that veterans are not standing in line as they have been. and let me tell you something, it doesn't matter what senator sanders or i or our conference committee passes, we can't legislate good morals and good character. and as long as people are inside the system that are willing to game the numbers as they have in the past, v.a. is not going to be able to fix itself. and so hopefully, as we both have talked with the incoming secretary, he will be able to make the change that is necessary from the top. >> mr. chairman, do you believe -- [inaudible conversations] >> you had mentioned about five billion of this will be offset. where are those offsets coming from? is it coming from within -- >> [inaudible] >> the other part of it -- >> so it's going to be $5

billion offset from other programs in the v.a. which i feel comfortable with. >> ask and the 12 billion is all emergency funding. >> yes. yes. >> do you think compromise can change the culture inside the v.a.? >> well, let me answer that. right now, and i hope this week within the next few days, bob mcdonald is going to be voted upon as the new secretary of the v.a. i have a lot of confidence in bob mcdonald. sloan gibson will remain on as deputy secretary, so we have a new team in there. and i hope very much that the v.a. fully understands that some of what we have seen and heard about in the last few months is -- this is not a political issue. this is unacceptable to any and every member of the united states congress. there's not going to be manipulation of data. there's not going to be lying about wait lists. there's going to be a better relationship between congress and the v.a. they're going to provide information to us when we need

that information. i want to say what i believe, and i've said this many, many times, and i think it's absolutely true in vermont, and i think it's true in many parts of this country that when veterans get into the v.a. system, they feel pretty good about the quality of care they are getting. i hear this all of the time. problem we're having with access, we're going to deal with it right now short term with emergency care, people going to private doctors and so forth. longer term, i hope the v.a.-the doctors, nurses -- will have the doctors, nurses and culture to make sure every veteran gets timely and quality health care when he or she needs it. sir? >> i know, chairman miller, you were suggesting we shouldn't read too much into the delay here, but give us a sense of what really was the biggest sticking point. you could have done this two weeks ago, you could have done it last week. what took until today to get it done? >> well, let me just -- please, you know, let's be clear. i don't know if chairman miller

would use the word, the united states congress, in my view s a dysfunctional institution. there are issue after issue where virtually nothing is happening when important legislation needs to be happening. so rather than go through why we didn't do this a month ago and get it done, the important point is we are here together having done something that happens quite rarely in the united states congress. i'm proud of what we have accomplished. you want to add anything to that? >> as you mentioned in your original bill, you didn't have this 21-day review period. are you worried that this compromise is going to allow for too much red tape and bureaucracy -- >> no. the way it will be written is that when the secretary makes the decision to fire someone, they will immediately be fired, and they lose their salary at that point. they will have a one week period in which to appeal, and the board will then have a 23-day period -- 21-day period in which they can review it. and if they don't do their job within a 21-day period, then the

firing is upheld. >> that is exactly right, and it's something, a sentiment i share. we do not want a repeals process going on month after month, year after year. >> and -- [inaudible] taking away their salaries before they have a chance for due process? >> well, look, i'm sure people have that concern. this is the compromise that we reached. i think it's a reasonable compromise. >> you mentioned short term going to the outside care, is there a specific, you know, sunset on this provision? in other words, it goes for two years and then that's it, or is it going to be reextended? i how does that work? >> can't talk about what happens in the future. there's now a three-year sunset. >> [inaudible] in the bill that trigger allowing veterans to seek out that care? you've left that to the current wait time defined by the v.a., right? if the v.a. changes what it says the wait time is? >> the senate had 30 days, and we are going with the senate 30

day. >> is this replacing arch? >> arch will be continued for two years. >> chairman miller? >> yes. >> off the question as to how you sell this to house republicans, i know that veterans are important, i know house republicans know they're important, but specifically how are you planning on selling this when it's mostly not offset which is something house republicans have said they don't support broadly? >> i come from a sales background before i came to congress -- [laughter] and i think i can do an adequate job. >> can you explain how? >> no. [laughter] no. we will be able to sell it to our conference. we will probably not get a unanimous vote as we did as the bill awz coming out of the -- was coming out of the house. >> he's always trying to one up me. [laughter] >> as we go through the process, there will be an educational process that will have to take place. obviously, some of our members

will need a little more educating than others. >> you know, i would say this, that, you know, at the end of the day whether your you're a conservative republican or a progressive, people understand that this issue should and must go beyond politics, that we have people who have put their lives on the line, people who have come back with a whole lot of problems, and it would be an absolute disgrace to this country if we did not address their needs. so i think there's going to be widespread support for this -- yes. >> on the process, when do you expect the conference committee to vote and what chamber do you expect to go first? >> i think we want to get this thing done as quickly as possible, so we're still working out that mechanism. >> but i think it would be appropriate to say that we hope to have everything done by the end of today. in regards to the conference committee signing off on the report. and then the mechanism as to who goes first is not as critical as

other pieces of this in putting it together. i will step out and say the house probably will go first, but that hasn't been decided yet. >> and my view is who goes first isn't important. the important thing is that we get this done as quickly as possible and we do this before we recess. yes, ma'am. >> chairman, senator sanders, you said that your view is that congress is a dysfunctional institution, there's nothing getting done when -- >> did i say that? >> you did. you did say that. not focusing on how long it may have taken to get this done, but going just from last week to this week, there was a pretty tense moment at the end of last week. could you give us a sense of what it took to get here? it could be instructive. >> look, again, these -- congress is very divided right now, and the house has its views, and the senate has its views, and jeff and i had to work through these things. i think at the end of the day what's important is he understood and i understood this is not democrats and republicans

or independents. this is the veterans of the united states of america, and we have a moral obligation to do it, and we did it. >> there has not been one time that senator sanders, nor our staffs have continued to communicate. a lot of the media made hay out of what took place last week, but we continued to negotiate. even as that day was unfolding, we were communicating. >> okay. one or two more questions. all right. yes, ma'am. >> there were members of the pennsylvania delegation who had been seeking to have some measures put in this conference committee report regarding infectious disease reporting. can you talk about if that was part of the conversation at all and what happened to that proposal? >> i am not sure that that is -- >> it was not part of this conference report. however, we both agree that some of the issues specifically in pittsburgh and other places

around the country will not stand, and we must try to resolve the veil of secrecy that caused the issue to crop up in pittsburgh. >> let me just answer what chairman miller said. look, this is not the end, this is the beginning. we are dealing now with a crisis situation, and i think we have done good work in addressing the crisis. but god knows there's a lot more work to be done in many, many areas, so we've got to keep going and doing that. all right? all right, thank you all very much. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> and house and senate both coming in today for legislative work at 2:00 eastern time. the senate will be voting this

afternoon on a number of nominations, and later this week working on highway funding. you can watch that live, the senate debate here on c-span2 and the house coverage over on our companion network, c-span. we spoke with a politico reporter about the congressional to-do list ahead of their five week recess which starts august 1st. let's take a listen. >> host: on the phone is lauren french, congressional reporter with politico. i lauren french, so the house has its own bill, the senate has a version as well.te h when might on this border issue, when might the house take up their legislation? >> guest: you can see it really happening this week, but the big problem right now is thatenin there's a lot of contention within the republican caucus about this bill, are they giving too much money, you know, is there enough for borderrder security? you're really going to? see john boehner and kevin mccarthy, steve scalise, the republican leadership really working their conference this week before they schedule a vote to insure thatea

if they put it up, they have the ability to pass it. >> host: why is that? >> guest: well, there's a few reasons for that. one, speaker -- minority leader nancy pelosi is really opposed to changing that 2008 anti-trafficking law in conjunction with the supplemental. she has said that she's fine doing it as a process of legislation and doing hearings and really having that change go through normal order, but she doesn't want it tied to the supplemental because that is immigration policy whereas the supplemental is really meant to address an emergency influx of unaccompanied minors at the border. there's also, you know, an objection that the amount spent is really much less than the $4 billion that the president had asked for. by and large, democrats are not going to come in and do what the democratic party really has done when speaker boehner hasn't been

able to cull enough republican votes and step in and provide the path. that's really unlikely this time. >> host: yeah. and the headline from your colleagues on this issue is that the house gop faces a big test this week on this border bill. why? i mean, where are the defections within the gop coming from? >> guest: they're coming from, you know, various parts of the gop. but what you see here again is some of those conservative members of the party, those who believe that, you know, most, most spending if not all spending even in emergencies should be offset so so that conservatives, when you have some border state, border state members who really want to see more border security measures put in there, and then you have those who just, who disagree generally with how the government's handling the immigration crisis at least with the unaccompanied minors and want to see much more there. so it's an interesting group who are opposing this, but it could lead up to trouble for the gop.

>> host: yeah. and then you have another story on politico's web site, cornyn and way car are pushing a border bill. the two of them have come together to address this 2008 law as you were saying, and in politico's piece -- here's a quote from senator cornyn who says a solution beats no solution every day, but are there wings of both the democratic party and the republican party willing to do nothing on this if they don't see what they want, either, you know, no revisions to 2008 law for the democrats or spending offsets for the republicans? >> guest: there absolutely is, and that's a real feel especially for republicans. it's a little bit less of a fear for democrats because they think they have been the leading voice on immigration reform. as they go home for the august recess, they don't think they'll be punished by voters if a supplemental doesn't happen. they want to see it done. people are called it shameful,

they've called it abdicating their duties in the democratic party if they don't vote on a supplemental bill, but they want it separate from that 2008 anti-trafficking law n. the republican party you have a split between those who say if with away go home without addressing this, we're going to get punished by increasingly a big bulk of the population which is the latino voter in the midterm elections. and there are some who don't see it's as big of a threat, you know? you're going to see that play out throughout the entire week. >> host: so what about on the senate side? the senate, as we said, they have their own version of this legislation as well. they want to spend a little bit more money, but is it a slam dunk for senate democrats? >> guest: you can see it coming through and really passing. slam dunk is hard in the senate because of all of the acrimony in that chamber right now over amendments and how poorly that senate majority leader harry reid and senate minority leader mitch mcconnell get along and how they work through that process, but it's much more likely that the senate does pass

something. now the big question is, is it something the house could then pass which is highly unlikely. so then do the two bodies have to go into conference committee? how long can that take? can they do it before friday which is when the senate leaves for august recess which is a five week break? and members, you know, you have some say of course we should keep working, we should stay, and there's even talk floating that it would be against the law to stay past august recess. >> host: why is that? >> guest: just some procedural, one of those archaic laws in senate and house, house bylaws that say they have to recess by august. so it'd be archaic. no one would be going to jail if they did it -- [laughter] it's just one of those who really stick to the letter of bylaws are talking about. >> host: okay. well, that's our question for all of our viewers this morning, should congress delay this address -- this recess to address the southern boarder?

another issue you've written about in pit toe today, lauren french, was this deal reached on the veterans affairs health care bill. how is it looking? is this, can this get past certain wings of both parties and through the house and senate by friday? >> guest: this looks much more likely than the supplemental bill which is surprising because last week myself as well as many others really thought it was falling apart. you had the senate democrats really criticizing the house republicans and the house republicans returning in kind for walking away from the negotiations. both sides had accused the other side of giving up. but what we're hearing from late last night and early this morning is that bernie sanders and jeff miller have reached a deal, they've come much closer in compromise, and they're going to unveil today at 1:30 their proposal for how to fix it. and that could actually get passed and sent to the president before the august recess if both the house and the senate work

quickly. >> host: and we're going to have coverage of that news conference today at 1:30 p.m. eastern time on c-span2. this is a $15 billion price tag for this deal that you're writing about this morning. beyond that, what are some of the highlights? >> guest: well, what you're going to see here is an ability for veterans who have been waiting for medical attention to leave the v.a. system and seek that care privately at the v.a.'s expense. you're also going to see that ability for veterans who live far from v.a. hospitals, about 40 miles is the generally-agreed-upon distance there. you're also going to see the ability, congress really giving the act or the v.a. secretary -- currently it's acting secretary sloan gibson, it will probably be bob mcdonald in a few days -- the ability to fire senior managers accused of mismanagement. that's a problem at the v.a. they can, obviously, fire those

who are ill performing, but it takes a very long time because of federal rules about letting employees go and their process to appeal it. but this would give him swift new powers to fire people who are accused of mismanagement which was one of the reasons this whole v.a. controversy started in the first place. >> host: all right. well, more to come on this v.a. deal, potential deal in the house and the senate. lauren french with politico, thank you very much for your time this morning. >> guest: anytime. >> and the senate about to gavel in. voting this afternoon on a number of nominations, and later this week work on highway funding. we'll watch live coverage right now from the floor of the senate here on c-span2. mr. reid: the senate will come to order. the prayer will be led by the