mindset that there are no limitations on what the code there are no limitations on the cruelty, on the animal instincts. the feeling that if they are the people that we are engaging i think that we've been wasting our time and they would only stand the language in which they were speaking. so, the observation as we call it the military occupation against them which was started sometime last year was activated and the national action plan was worked out as a 20-point national action plan. i had to chair the meeting of all of the political parties that worked together over many hours and many days. in a seven-day timeline which

was announced by the paymaster and in a seven-day timeline, to the mutual consensus involved the national action plan. i was very happy to see the agenda of the summit that we are having here in the united states. at least 11 or 12 points in the national action plan coincide with the agenda items of a summit that is taking place here in washington. so i'm very happy to exchange views in the international community and our friends with the united states of america and other partners to try and identify the best way forward. i think pakistan has never been so focused as it is now on the job at hand. there's never been this kind of

unity over the last 13 years. and there's never been this kind of unity of purpose which has emerged across to the length and the breadth of the country. but having said that, let me also say that it is no easy task all the troubles and all the problems that have been built up over the last 13 years that would take a lot of effort. more importantly once the pressure on the terrorists has increased once they have been fixed to the wall, once the headquarters are across the area and have been destroyed, they've

gone across the border and they are trying to reorganize themselves. since the headquarters have been destroyed, now they are going for the worst option. they are going for the softest target. they are schools, places of worship, marketplaces. people congregate in large numbers during the daytime. the option is very difficult. we can't close down our schools. we can't close down our faces of worship. we can't close down our markets. we have to keep normal life going. that is the most important aspect and most important obligation and responsibility of

the government. and at the same time, we have to protect our country and the people against terrorists. what are foreigners? they are not a different color or seek a different language, they cannot be recognized on the street as people any different from the rest of us. they speak the same language they are the same color that they wear the same clothes. so how do you sift through the terrorists from the normal citizens? it a very difficult task. but as i said for the first time, the environment has been created in which the government is moving forward on a very fast track traditionally and historically there has been a divided and i will be open and

candid about it in the last ten or 12 years. between the civil and the military on how this operation against terrorism should move forward. it originated basically because the decision taken by general musharraf was taken without consensus. that led to a lot of divisions not only did the civil between the civil and military that the military itself. we managed to go through the initial two years and as time went on the system started to institutionalize and things began to get better. but as i said, it has been a roller coaster ride and these last 13 years has been consistent in this respect.

but giving you this historical background i think that my idea was to advise you of the difficulties on the way forward. it is important now not to have what is wrong in the past. the important thing is to look towards the future. and it is an area we are now hopefully optimistic because there is security of purpose clarity of vision you cannot expect to move forward. i would like to take the credit upon this government over a year and a half ago we tried to land

some synergy to the system. we knew and were very conscious of the fact that the last 12 years or so and i am talking about before 2013, the one single largest sector but effective pakistan's fight against terrorism was the lack of unity. as a pastor in september of 2013 convened a meeting of the party conference and it was decided in the first instance to engage the militants in some kind of a dialogue with the condition that any dialogue would take place under the constitution of pakistan. that process took about eight

months. for the first time in the history of this kind of negotiation and dialogue, those people came down from the hill and engaged in former dialogue with the civilian leadership. within a matter of the, we became conscious of the fact that we were operating on a two-point agenda. on the one hand they were talking to us and on the other some segments of the terrorists were engaging in the same activities so as to put increasing pressure on the government to agree to their demands. and the bottom line came when they attacked one in karachi and one of the premier airports.

once that took place at both of the dialogue process. and after a lot of liberation event for the options of the military operation. let me tell you that the process was important for the military operation to take place. as i've said repeatedly, there were a lot of divisions in pakistan's critical hierarchy the political parties particularly the parties of the right of center about the decision to eliminate the military operation apart from so many problems one of the main issues that was constantly talked about was the fact that this wasn't pakistan's were.

this was where specifically the united states war which has been imposed on this region and the pakistan army is fighting the super war. so the option of the process on which all of the parties were united was to ensure that we play out the process. you are very honest and engaging in the other site and display of dialogue process. as i said it didn't last very long and then the decision to virgo or carry out the military operation was taken another meeting was convicted to be convened and because the situation on the ground about political parties came on board.

that's fighting the terrorists for the markets of pakistan. that is practically i think now it is a part of the policy and fighting the terrorism within pakistan. what are the areas of concern? almost all the headquarters of the terrorist organizations within pakistan and they were very close to the border have

been destroyed. over 2,000 terrorists have been killed in the operations there is a general support for the military operation across the country. it existed in the first two years between the civilian military had it been completely erased and i can now see as somebody that is responsible. it's not only at the strategic level, not only at the operational level but also at the strategic level.

and that gives a lot of space for the government to work out its strategy on a long-term basis. but we also have the negatives. one of the major negatives is our concern about the capacity of the administration across the border who handled the situation in the absence of the forces in the foreign support which had been extended to this country before 9/11 i do not see any restriction on numbers talking

with afghanistan but the strength has gone down drastically. at the time of the surgical as anything upwards of about 140,000 troops. over 140000. now there will be just around 10,000 individual be accepted into the major towns and major places and their objective is going to be mainly defensive. it's a little phase is basis over the next couple of months is all the rage of the about to

protect itself after? this is a question that is good to be answered in the next two or three months. it has been a very close coordination and i hope i'm not -- how much time do i have? the close cooperation between pakistan and afghanistan i think relations between afghanistan and pakistan have never been better and that is a very big positive for stability and a region. they've been incidences on both sides of the border into the first in for the first time there's been no finger-pointing from either side. the agencies security agencies

have been working very closely. there've been visits at the highest level. our foreign minister has gone to afghanistan. our army chief has gone there and he was there yesterday i think this is his third visit. they have been constantly in coordination and includes talks with each other. this is the relationship that is of vital importance for some kind of sanity in the region. but it's also important that the focus of the international community must remain as focused as there is a greater need for the focus to be a even more

considered because there are certain areas in which the support of the international community is vital. i think meetings of the conference is like the one that we are having right now play an important role in keeping the coordination moving forward. my personal view is that interaction and coordination should take place at the regional level, at the local level. you can't generalize the problem in the country with the international community faces as far as terrorism is concerned. you cannot correlate the extremist and in the middle east or in north africa.

they have separate agendas. one thing i'm very concerned with is the dependency of the international community to generalize the extremist threats all over the world. there are certain strands, but the regional aspect must be emphasized. the regional genesis for the origins. only then you will be able to bring a solution in fighting the own regions. lastly, there has been a lot of concern shown all over by the

recent development of the extremist threat in north africa and particularly in the middle east. there's also been a lot of concern about the extension of the threat to south asia. as of now i can say that which exists today for the time being it is a middle eastern, not. it has absolutely no presence in pakistan and afghanistan. there has been a lot of media hype about this. there've been a lot of very responsible people talking about the threat of isis to that part of the world. i was talking to our ambassador here in washington. this place in south asia is

almost totally occupied. the treaty, the ttp have their own agenda. i do not foresee them sharing the platform with other agendas for a group like isis. isis at the moment is totally focused on the middle east. but in the future, unless and until we address the regional press and international threat you cannot rule out the possibility of the alliance later on.

but to overreact to to the threat will not be the right thing to do. but the area of concern for the country like pakistan is that the diversion of focus by the international community to the emerging isis breast could lead to a lessening of the focus in south asia. that's ideal must not happen. i think 13 years of sacrifice, of blood and toil and effort has gone into reducing. we need to further cement and further coordinate our efforts for the operation so as to say

and we must not repeat the mistakes when the united states and the international community after the defeat of the soviet union left a huge vacuum in afghanistan and south asia enabling the militants to occupy the place. that ambition must be left open and it's important for us to learn from our mistakes and it's important for us to learn from our history. it is important not to underestimate or overestimate the threat from the extremists and from the militants. i think it's not just pakistan. internationally, i see a grand consensus building up over the

cruelty over the militant groups i think we need to work together hand-in-hand, brick and mortar right in the nitty-gritty we need to work together as a member states of the international community, as allies and as part of the civilized world to try to eliminate the scourge of terrorism in all its form and all its aspect. pakistan has been playing that role over the last 13 years. we are now renewed in our commitment to fight not only within the borders of pakistan but in the region. even beyond the are fully committed and we are willing and hoping that the international

community to work with places like pakistan to make that happen. thank you for your attention. plus >> thank you very much for your remarks and also bringing out some of the challenges and opportunities that pakistan has as we move forward. what we do but we do have is a few questions for you from the audience and a couple from myself and have a conversation before the end. let me begin if i may we talked about it being the 9/11 of pakistan and through the nation being moved. i felt during that time and i saw that happened. it was remarkable in some ways. but i think this is not the first time we've seen the pakistani nation moved because of these horrendous attacks by one or another group.

what does pakistan due to keep the sentiment and support going without having major attacks take place that galvanized people for the time being and then we seem to forget? >> first and foremost, we must keep the momentum against the terrorists on a very high level. more and more success in the battlefield will motivate the people of pakistan. a second, the international community must keep its focus and support in the region, totally centered. there might be quite a few things which we might not do and might not come up with in the international community. i think it is very important that the international community must understand the problems that we face.

so on that account, that perception must not go across that we are constantly being asked to do more. it must not go across that we are fighting somebody into the war. the depression must not go across that we take directions some from some other countries. if we are fighting it as we are fighting us today as pakistan's own threat and pakistan's or, we continue to get on the battlefield and we managed to evil the strategy for protecting our cities and schools and towns. in other words, strengthening our internal security i think the momentum and the server. >> do you feel that the pakistani state over the years has done enough to reactivate and convince its own public that

this is pakistan's's war because there've also been times he talked about the civil military disconnect in the earlier part of 9/11 where there was mixed messages for the people in some ways. >> actually not. i think that there have been feelings on so many counts. there have been feelings on the part of the state and the chain of events. it isn't being handled as it should be. starting from the day general musharraf took that position. it has been an issue of missed opportunity. but having said that, let me go back to the remark you made. you said that there have been other friend this instance is that there's never been this

coming together of the pakistani nation and that is the region that i compared it with 9/11. so, the coming together as it happened for the first time that is the positive area that we need to work on. the feelings i think we left them once they are tied into the country. the >> let me also ask you having worked with the sector over the years i find pakistan has done fairly well coming up with policies and decisions on what to change and what to do. the implementation in a visibly is less, so we have the national internal security policy that you offered a year ago. how does the national action plan relate to that and why do we need an ip if it was already a vision to do exactly what the state has to do now?

>> you know me normally most of the time we act first and strategize later. we engage in this war against extremism for the last 13 years. almost everything has been hindered by the military and a lot of it was off the cuff. there were a lot of problems on who was responsible and accountable. so for the first time when i took over and the government took office, i think one of the first imperative is for all of us was to have a strategy, to have a policy. so that is the reason we worked almost six months. we worked with the military. we worked with the provinces. the provinces are a very important part in the whole organization.

and it was difficult working with the military and the provinces. we worked with a whole lot of experts with the media, the national security experts and it took us almost seven or eight months to come up with a policy. part of it was implemented. i could sit and discuss the policy paper with you for hours. ..

i mean, i country engaged in the war against extremism, for whom intelligence agencies rule and work is of paramount of imports. you'll be surprised to know that even at the very high level we were not aware of the total number of agencies. most of these agencies were working in competition with each other, sometimes they were not sharing information. i can say now there has been a sea change. i don't say that in total confirmation but a sea change from june 2132 a lot of

intelligence sharing, there's a lot of close coordination. if a certain agency is working in a certain area and the lead goes on to another where another agency is working, without a moments hesitation they pass on the information and let other agencies takeover. i can give you more than a few incidents in this regard. so a joint intelligence, which was a dream of years ago as operationally working. yes, most of it has been handled by the military but it is working under the ministry so it is working under the intelligence, under the civilian leadership. although a lot of other things. national internal security policy was the organizational and administrative and strategic policy paper that we announced

over a year ago. national election plan is the poorest part. some of it is part of the security policy that would've followed anyways, and some of it i think was needed given the precarious situation of pakistan was facing. >> thank you. let me sort of just ask one more thing on the coordination part since you mentioned it. we at usip published the book lash on pakistan's counterterrorism challenge, getting pakistan experts. one thing that came out across the whole book there's a common thread was -- if i may history is not too pretty, having sir, became a political football one place to another. but we at least conclude is that that has to be the apex body that takes for the from and send role of pakistan's counterterrorism task.

where do you see it going from there? is is a paradigm shift as we're seeing or are we still deciding what its role is going to be? >> it's just a start. i think there is too much invested interest, too much competition. agencies between departments, so for them to become a sea change, basically assume the role that it was designed to play, i think it will take a bit of time. but a start has definitely been made. the military of being here is playing a proactive role to try and build that framework under which nectar can work as a totally independent body. it will take a bit of time. just to make a reference to what happened in the united states it took upwards of a year if not two years before the homeland

security pulled itself together. for a country like pakistan and which systems are not as from and a strong su in the united states, i think it is probably will take time but i think for the first time everybody is convinced that nectar has a role and unique in every department every organization needs to see the space to nectar for it to play that overall coordinating and proactive role which i think is important if we are to be successful in the fight against sectarianism. >> let me ask one more question and then we have a few to go through from the audience, which as we talked about which are also and the dpp as being the perpetrators. we talked about afghanistan and the safe havens. there's a whole slough of the organization that we have to look at women look at terrorism in pakistan. just this when we had another major attack a sectarian

attack. there also are reports one has -- active in balochistan and the surf complicating the problem in some ways. how does your national action plan and how does the planning after a short address the second groups, then if i may add the whole question of southern pincher. this is the hotbed this is a hotbed. and wanted to record what really exists there and what kind of threat it poses. so is this plan confidence of the to do with it or is the pakistani state capacity stretched in a way that it has speedy's obviously you will have to sequence question of capacity problems build up over the years will take time. but after the success we will have to work over time to address the safety of the

problem. the sectarian government has been there i think almost for 30 years now if not earlier. one of the offshoots of the jihad was that these elements wanted to join the jihad and used that as a platform. so it is been a problem now for over 30 years. it is difficult because its insular, just talking about the in the accident the incident and another one je suis charlie. the difficulty here is -- peshawar. these people are living amongst you. it is very very difficult for intelligence to pick up their communication or any kind of

any other warning. they normally interact through word of mouth, direct communication. so it is very difficult. as i said in my initial remarks you can't close down your villages. you have to keep life going. so it is a difficult process. how, what is the strategy and a national action plan? use the consensus built up on the fight against extremism, and use the religious elements amongst the community to try and work it out lowest common denominator of understanding of tolerance between various sectarian groups. this is hogwash. this is not just talk. i think within the first few weeks we were able to do that. i chaired, in fact i convened a

meeting of all the various segments of society, and we were able to work it out and agreement on military reform. this is never happened, and that included, included auditing of funds. that included the registration. that included you know transparency of curriculum. and a whole lot of other things. so we need to work from the inside to address the sectarian problem. there is no, there is no outside sector or force which can resolve the sectarian problem in pakistan to we are trying to work from the inside, and hopefully over the next two weeks you will see improvement in this regard. but sectarian attacks which are taking place right now they are terrorist related.

unofficially part of the tpp alabama on 10 -- taliban pakistan. this is being targeted, a normal sectarian divide in pakistan. this is totally terrorist related incidents most of the activity has been limited by the military operation, so they are using the sectarian divide to put a softer targets. >> what do you make the of some of the reports which say that last cartel of them is targeting some of the baloch nationalist i think i'm? >> a lot of movement of the terrorist have taken place amongst military operation took place but a lot of them moved across afghanistan, then there is a certain corridor to use it

can expand territory, then they cross over into balochistan. so as not just the enemy. is the major sections who have moved into parts of balochistan. they have been over 500 intelligence base operations by our military, our armed forces and the police. we have managed in a very major way to restrict activities and to contain the violence. unfortunately, that particular progress is never identified, not even appreciated. because for so many reasons we don't always make it public. so we are focused, the pakistani government is focused the military is focused on these developments in afghanistan, the transformation has taken place. the migration of the terrorists into vast areas of balochistan. but i think generally speaking things are under control.

>> there are two or three questions at least, and i was sort of lump them together about the organization and the recent move to ban more organizations. the concerns expressed here are one, there's been history of banned organizations using new names and coming up into what they were doing in the past. there's also specific concerns about groups that seem to be anti-indian, lashkar-e-taiba and others. we hear that the pakistanis did not close as we're going after everybody. and yet there seems to be some confusion about who is being banned. there's a delay. is there a delay? what is the policy now on banning organizations and on ensuring that it is not only going to result in a name change and the operations continue? >> i'm almost embarrassed to give you feedback on this because it's not a question of this government, pass

government, whatever past governments have done, that goes into the area of responsibility of the state of pakistan. there have been very vague policies on these and other issues, and that has led to a lot of confusion on the number of prescribed organization, even those that haven't prescribed some have gone into other areas with different names and they are operating within pakistan. when we decide decided to identify these organizations you be surprised to know that there was no tangible record on exact number of prescribed organizations with the government had made a decision on. so it was a difficult area that

i am almost embarrassed to give you this particular feedback, but over the last few months we have very proactively as you rightly said, there is no tremendous support among all sections of the government -- there is now -- treating every prescribed organization with the same rule and the same state. but lack of governments action, over spread over so many years had led to a lot of looseness on the part of the government. so it will take a bit of time but there is now a consensus that anybody picking up arms

must be brought must be prevented no militias, no armed militias should be allowed in pakistan. and only sufficient security agencies should be allowed to carry arms. that is a policy which is being implemented. various terrorist groups have been arraigned, arrested, put in jail. their militias have been put in jail. so it's a major step forward but it's going to take time. you know, most of these groups over the years has given rise to a lot of problems, but now the commitment is to treat everybody alike, and you will see

improvement in this area sooner rather than later. >> you have lost your microphone somewhere there. if you can -- i think it -- if you can just -- because we are telling casting. if i may let me push you a little bit more on this. specifically on the question of groups that groups that may not be doing anything in pakistan but are seen as being operational elsewhere. so the anti-india groups being the obvious ones maybe insurgent groups being the obvious ones. some of the concerns, because for instance, people see on tv december 4, there's a big rally. and then it's also listed as one of the organizations that is to be banned or taken to task or

whatever. this dichotomy i think infuse a lot of people about the intent of the pakistani state. >> well, i can speak about the intent of the pakistani state as of today. i cannot speak about the intent of the pakistani state or various pakistani governments over the years. but more importantly the international community have understood the point of view in this respect of pakistani governments. so why blame us? at this series time, and i think the intent, this is very very clear, our point of view is that it will take a bit of time. things have taken place in the past do you cannot expect overnight solution to the intent is there that have been there before. actions have been taken the last few weeks which are a meditation -- manifestation of that content. >> another question in the same thing, and you rightly pointed

to the improving relations between pakistan and afghanistan at the track one level. but the question pertains to the perception of afghans, about pakistan and about pakistan's policy towards afghanistan. and specifically to the presence of afghan insurgent groups, some of them in pakistani territory. so the question from the audience is, what will you tell an average of candidate if they were to raise the same concern? what is it to show that the policy has moved on from the past? >> i think it's not a question thatof my telling them or the government of pakistani taliban. it is the action on the ground. i think -- pakistan telling them. i think the military operation started within pakistan in june last year. it is given very, very positive and i think it's not just within pakistan. it's across the border. but having said that let me also

say that there is a whole area on the border between pakistan and afghanistan which is inhabited by tribes that live on both sides of the border, afghanistan side and pakistan side. so movement across the border is a nominal phenomenon, and these terrorists have used these means of communications is open border to move freely between pakistan and afghanistan. as of now i can say with a lot of confidence and a lot of responsibility, most of the terrorist groups have run across the border into afghanistan. we are now working very closely with the afghan government to work out a strategy too, not to a joint operation but to a

coordination operate they are on their site side and we are on our side. and once that particular exercise takes place, a lot of the concern that you have expressed will die out automatically. >> okay. let me just ask a couple more before we end. on afghanistan-pakistan, one of the periodic areas if you will is in terms of the status of refugees. the track one was for and then you will see press reports in pakistan decided to have all of them expatriate, it's a debate what is the pakistani state policy at the moment on afghan refugees? they are the first ones come legal documents are missing there are problems or whenever there's a crackdown in that sense they tend to stand out. >> we have a serious problem on that account, as i said.

anyway, upwards of 3 million a few have gone back. we are still left with a huge majority. as of today the figures are about around 1.2 million registered and almost the same number who are there without any papers. they are a huge drain on our economy, but most importantly we have hosted them for the last 30 years and we are willing to host them for many, many years, as long as necessary. but as per the agreement they were to restrict themselves to camps. they were to fully register, the international committee would also lend a hand, a supporting and. all of that now is not there on the ground.

know can't is populated now. they've all moved out of camps. they are living in populated areas. they have their own society so as to say. and a lot of terrorists coming from across the border or even from within the frontier use of these camps, use these avenues to carry out terroristic activities in pakistan. so that is an area of concern. what we are trying to do is we are trying to put them back into the camps. so exercise of registration has started. it is going to take time. we are going to serious financial problems taking them back it. the agreement to let them remain in pakistan runs out in december 2015. the bottom line is that although

we are concerned about the role of some of these camps which are, which is being part of the security force pakistan's concern, we will not do anything which will be an area of concern for the new afghan government. so we work with them work out a timeline and a schedule for the eventual repatriation. in the meantime, how do we handle within pakistan after the decisions over -- afghan government to work out a mutually agreed timetable for the repatriation of the unregistered afghans in the first place, and discuss the eventual withdrawal of the idps the afghan refugees, closer to december 2014 -- 2015. >> finally minister khan one

specific question on the police. i know you have invested quite a bit in terms of seeing how to make the police do a better job. a rapid response force of as one element of the. what is the afghani state doing in terms of either revamping or improving the police pursue because ultimately will be the front line of crime prevention and control? >> as you rightly said it is police, if police is able to somehow be able in the shortest possible term carry out an exercise of capacity strengthening, i think that will do wonders for our fight against extremism. but we have a lot of problems on this. the element of time, finances training, the police in pakistan as you know is not equipped or trained for antiterrorism for

counterterrorism. just normal law and order activity. a little help and support that was available internationally that has thinned out now. we are now engaged the military in capacity building of the police come in the first response force of the police which passed just recently that was entirely supported by the military. so in the short term we are getting their support, not only in terms of training but also in getting some personal from the military in the police force also. people who are close to retirement and the military or people who have left the army and are now willing to join the police, so it is going to be a bit of a mixture of police and retired army officials working

as a response force in the short term. and in immediate and long-term of course we have program of training but that will take anything between 18 months to two years. >> i did say finally but there is one last finally, which is there some concern here, and otherwise, about international ngo presence in pakistan. there's this new bill to regulate ngos. one of the question is has asked them is the pakistani state outlook to work ngos were doing some very good work in pakistan for a number of years, and whether there's going to be a lesser space perhaps for them to operate or is this bill and the current sort of structure or the effort just to bring them into the mainstream? there seems to be some concern with this new sort of ngo bill and sort of movement. >> absolutely no concern. i think basically we are out to regulate the whole system.

over the years we actually didn't have a policy on this matter. so the idea is to regulate no circumvention in area of work. there should be a fully no concern of export. the idea is for the government to know which area a particular ngo is operating, and to ensure that it works within that framework. and for the ngo to be very clear about its own area of responsibility. so simply the idea is to bring about clarity in the system, not to bring any kind of restriction on any ngo. >> minister, let me thank you. let me, before weekend also invite vice president to give you a memo. let me say we wish you the very best of luck. thank you for joining us.

[applause] >> thank all of you for braving the cold and joining us today and also for those who joined online, but very much would also like to take time to thank the minister for joining us today. this is a topic which we could go on a talk about for quite a long time but, unfortunately, we run out of time. a small memory of your visit to usip. more importantly, pakistan's counterterrorism challenges edited by moeed yusuf, also signed by moeed yusuf. we would like to present you as a gift for your visit here. thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> shortly we will go live to the white house briefing room as we await the start of today's administration briefing sent to start shortly, scheduled for 12:30 p.m. we will have it live here on c-span2 win a gets underway. yesterday president obama offered comments about his texas judge's decision to temporarily block the president's executive action on immigration. here's what he had to say. >> welcome i just had an opportunity to meet for the first time in his official capacity with my new second a defense, ash carter. we talked about a wide range of security challenges and opportunities that we face around the world, everything from making sure we are dismantling i so and not only stabilizing the situation in iraq but addressing the foreign

fighters issued and countering the violent extremism that has been turbocharged through the internet. we had a chance to talk about situations like ukraine. we also had an opportunity to talk about how we maintain the strongest and most effective military in the world and how we keep pace with our outstanding men and women in uniform. i could not be more confident that ash carter is going to do an outstanding job as secretary of defense, and he is hitting the ground running already having spent a lot of time in this administration and in the pentagon. i want to thank the senate for confirming him almost unanimously. and i look forward to working with them because i think america will be well served by mr. ash carter. >> the immigration issue?

>> i disagree with the texas judge's ruling, and the justice department will appeal. this is not the first time where a lower court judge has blocked something or attempted to block something that ultimately was shown to be lawful. i'm confident that it is well within my authority and their tradition of excited branches prosecutorial discretion to execute this which will help us make our borders a safer, will help us go after criminals and those who we don't want in this country, will help people get on the right side of the law. and get out of the shadows. keep in mind that this is something that we necessarily have to make choices about, because we have 11 million people here who are we are in no

all going to deport the many of them are our neighbors. many of them are working in our communities. any of their children are u.s. citizens. and as we saw with the executive action that i took for dreamers, people who would come here as a young children, and our american by any other name accept for their legal papers i want to serve this country oftentimes want to go into the military or start businesses or in other ways contribute. i think the american people overwhelmingly recognize that to pretend like we are going to ship them off is unrealistic and not who we are. so i also said throughout this process that the only way we're going to get a broken immigration system fully fixed

is by congress acting. and we know that there has been bipartisan support in the past for comprehensive immigration reform. i held off taking these executive actions. until we have exhausted all possibilities of getting congressional action. with a new congress my hope has been that they now get serious in solving the problem. instead what we've had is a series of votes to kick out young people who have grown up your, and everybody recognizes are part of our community. and threats to define the department of homeland security which would make it even harder for us to protect our borders and keep our people safe. so my strong advice right now to congress is if they are seriously concerned about immigration from about our borders, about being able to keep criminals out of this

country, in what they should be doing is working together and working with the administration for a comprehensive immigration policy that allows us to continue to be both a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. and certainly they need to start funding the department of homeland security so that they can go forward with all the functions that republican say they want carried out, including strong border security functions. but with respect to the ruling, i disagree with it. i think the law is on our side and history is on our side. and we are going to appeal it. for those who are now wondering whether or not they should apply we are going to refer those questions to the department of homeland security that is already begun the planning process. and we will be prepared to implement this fully as soon as the legal issues get resolved. >> are you going to wade into the higher court rules on your

programs before implementing the? >> well, keep in mind, we are not going to disregard this federal court ruling. the law is the law in this country, and we take things a step at a time. so we're not going to be actually taking applications until this case is settled. but we are going to schmidt we are doing the preparatory work because this is a big piece of business, and it's important for us to do in order for us to actually secure our borders effectively and allocate limited resources to the most important tasks and functions that the department of homeland security has. we should not be tearing some mom away from her child when the child has been born here and that mom has been living here for the last 10 years, minding her own business and being an important part of the community. we should be focusing on

stopping people at the borders, reinforcing our effectiveness of their, going after criminals and balance who are in our midst who we can deport, strengthening our systems for legal immigration. those are all the things that we could be doing through a comprehensive immigration reform bill, and, in fact, we note that there has been in the past ipods and support for the. but as i said before, i'm not willing to just stand by and do nothing and engaged in a lot of political rhetoric. i'm interested in actually solving problems. i would like to see congress take the same approach. in the meantime the department of homeland security will continue in the planet because we want to make sure as soon as these legal issues get resolved which i anticipate they will in our favor that we are ready to go. thank you. thank you very much, everybody.

thank you, guys. >> the president speaking yesterday at the white house. today he is talking at a summit on combating violent extremism. we will have his remarks from that summit live starting at about 4:15 p.m. eastern c-span to we are waiting remarks from white house spokesman josh earnest. you will start today's briefing shortly. live coverage here on c-span2. and "the wall street journal" reporting that earlier today president obama named joseph clancy delete the secret service. joseph clancy been the interim chief since the dover. you can read more about that at "the wall street journal." waiting for today's white house briefing to get under way. comments from vice president joe biden a key spoke yesterday during the three-day white house summit on terrorism. >> well, first of all welcome

particularly to our friends from belgium and the netherlands have come a long way to be here. we appreciate the great deal. but thank you all for being here. you know especially in this quote snow emergency now those of you from minnesota know this is not much of an emergency. i understand that but in washington when you hear snow is coming, everything shuts down. but we actually did have some snow last night and i appreciate you all making effort particularly those of you from boston who probably do this as a visit to the caribbean right now. so thank you all so very much. look, we are here today because we all understand that in dealing with violent extremism that we need answers that go beyond a military answer. we need answers that go beyond

our force. countries, all of us including the dreaded, we have to work from the ground up. we have to work from the ground up and engage our communities and engage those who might be susceptible to being radicalized because they are marginalized. societies have to provide an affirmative alternative for immigrant communities a sense of opportunity, a sense of belonging and that discredits the terrorists appeal to fear, isolation, hatred, resentment. and we also have, police have to build partnerships within religious and business and civic communities, but we've also brought along all those folks in your. we have religious leaders here. we have the business community civic leaders, all with one purpose in mind how do we

counter the appeal of radicalization. in september president obama convened the u.n. security council, some of you might remember, and led in the passage of the resolution committing countries to take on the scourge of foreign fighters, foreign terrorist fighters but we need more needs to be done than what has already been done. leader after leader explain that it's not enough to take on these networks of extremists who wish to do as well. we also to take on the ideology that attracts foreign fighters from all around the world to join them. this meeting is a continuation of that effort at over the next three days we will hear from leaders from government civil society, from communities in nearly 70 countries around the world in this three-day conference, about how they believe we can make good on the collective commitment to build

from the ground up. i would like to thank again the mayors from belgium and the netherlands toward the with the most recent manifestations of this challenge. we ask you both to be a today because you've been active and innovative. i just had a chance to meet with the european council, with the european parliament et cetera. the topic of discussion in a closed meetings was about what can be done in europe now, they are asking me. we discussed some of the things we have done. but both of you have been truly out front. he had been leading and we are anxious to hear what you have to say. and the focus of today's events are making sure that violent extremism never finds a home in the communities of the united states. we are going to hear from

representatives from los angeles minneapolis, st. paul as well as boston, as well as the u.s. attorneys from each of those locales who have been leading in this effort as well. your cities were chosen because of what you have already done what you've already done the reverend brown and i go back a long way. i wrote the so-called crime bill in the united states which everybody thinks did put 100,000 copts on the street, but also devoted more money to prevention and any single program we have ever engaged in in the united states of america. and so reverend brown you and a lot of folks have been at this for a long, long time. i'm not talking about radicalization. i'm talking about communities be left behind and how to deal with violence. and in minneapolis-st. paul we are working to build relations with the east african immigrants who have made your city their

home. as the same folks have made, somalis have made my city of bloomington deliver on a smaller scale, very identifiable somali community. i might add if you come to the train station with you will notice that a great relations with them because there's an awful lot of driving cabs and our friends of mine, for real. i'm not being solicitous. i am being serious. so starting in 2007 the minneapolis-st. paul you've trained over 600 officers in the somali language and culture. you're actually stepping out to try to engage. you invited hundreds of teenagers from the community to your police stations for sporting events and swimming and i'm sure you have how police athletic association and the like in your city. and, and i know you have a much more to talk about. we've asked los angeles to be

here because you have reached out to communities to give reached out, building networks to try to connect the needs of their citizens with access to help, everything from providing mental health resources to coming up with strategies for other interventions. sitting with us today is the head of the muslim public affairs council who came up with a program called safe spaces and initiative, teaching community leaders, religious leaders and counselors how to deal with violent extremism in the city of los angeles. and in boston, you were planning to provide forms and platforms for community leaders in every community the muslim community, all minority communities for people to build advocate for nonviolence and able to express themselves online as well as in person. but this is not something new to

boston. as i said, all the way back in 92, reverend brown started the 10-point coalition. if i remember correctly reverend, or a group of ministers worked to change relationship between kids and police kids on the street. and i might add i'm very proud as a vice president of the united states to seal boston responded to the crisis that occurred in the marathon. it did not turn its venom, it's anger, it's frustration against any community. it resolved to pull the communities together. i think that was something that was, at least i personally could take no credit for but i was are proud of, i had the opportunity to speak on the one year anniversary and be there for the second marathon. and i was proud, i was proud of the way the bostonians stood up and moved on.

and i want to make it clear though, i'm not suggesting to the press or any of our guests that i think america has all the answers here. we just have a lot more experience. by that i mean we are a nation of immigrants. that's who we are. that is not hyperbole. we talked, we teach our kids, we are a melting pot. the god's truth is we are a polygon. we are a melting pot. it is the ultimate source of our strength. it is the ultimate source of who we are. what we have become. it started off with back in the late 1700s. there's been a constant unrelenting stream of immigration. not in little trickles but in large numbers. i had an opportunity to be in singapore with the former president who is now 93 years old and i was talking to him on my way to china to meet with president xi, and they said he

is not as sort of the henry kissinger of asia for real. but he's a very wise man. and i said to him, i said what are the chinese doing now? and he thought, because we're talking about how rapidly the net i've come to know relatively well resident she consolidated power. and he said to me speaks perfect english. he said they are in america looking for the buried blackbox. it looks at me to secure looking at me like what is he talking about? he said they're looking for that secret that allows america to constantly be able to remake itself, unlike any other country in the world. and i said i can present to chile what's in that blackbox mr. president. i am old enough now. i said, one is that there is come in america there is an overwhelming skepticism for orthodoxy. from the time a child, whether they are naturalized or they are

nativeborn day think about it a child never gets criticized and education system for challenging orthodoxy, for challenging the status quo. i would argue it's unlike any other large country in the world. the second thing in that blackbox, and unrelenting stream of immigration. nonstop, nonstop. folks like me who are caucasian of european descent, for the first time in 2017 will be an absolute minority in the united states of america. absolute minority. fewer than 50% of the people in america from then and on will be white european stock. that's not a bad thing. that's the source of our strength. and so we have been we haven't always gotten it right. i don't want i don't want is just we have all the answers, but have a lot of experience of

integrating communities into the american system, the american dream. a generation from now as i said things will be changing even more. it's not merely that we are a melting pot but we are proud to be a melting pot. and with that we have made a lot of mistakes but we also have made a lot of progress. and we've learned a lot of hard lessons. but the most important lesson we've learned, we don't always practice it is that inclusion counts. let me say that again. inclusion counts. inclusion counts. being brought in and made a part of the community whether as my irish ancestors with signs no irish need apply and anti-catholic movement of the know nothings in the late 1800s straight through to some respond today to the number of

folks in the united states of america that are have a static background to we've always ultimately overcome the. it's always been about inclusion, being a part of the whole. as i said we still have problems, but i'm proud of the american record culture and economic integration, of not only our muslim commuters and african communities, asian the community's, hispanic communities, and the way it still continues. it's not going to stop nor should we want it to stop. as a matter of fact one of the things i think we can be most proud of. in so the truth of the matter is when i swept to be able to another, i'm not talking about surveillance. i'm not talking about cameras. i'm talking about being able to look at one another and see one another. to see who we are understand

how similar we are. and it's about recognizing the dignity that every person in america is entitled to be afforded without exception. every person in america immigration -- excuse they can immigrant or nativeborn. because at the end of the day it's about treating age of the with respect and although we need technology, technology cannot replace contact. technology can't replace contact. and that was the principle behind the notion we had in that bill i wrote a long time ago called community policing. it wasn't about just getting tougher on the street. it was about making sure that the policeman got out of the car and knew who the local shop owner was, knew his name. mohammad, my name is officer

jones commit my card. know, literally. literally, not figuratively. when we did community policing the police around this table can tell you, violent crime in four years dropped over 19% and the united states of america. and it was because the police officers went to the community meetings. they showed up at the church basements. they were engaged. and you know that guy who said it best is a friend of mine occasionally gets criticized but his name is bill bratton, former commissioner of in boston, then los angeles, new york -- boston, new york l.a. now back in new york. and he said, joe, when i was out of los angeles, he said, and african-american woman who was an activist in the community came up and said to me something i've never forgotten. she said there is an african is

saying by a large african tribe centered just north of south africa, and she said the phrase is, we see you we see you. folks, we are not going to make a lot of progress in less we can actually see one another. vcu. -- we see. bill bratton was correct. you know it's important when a minority community understands that law enforcement faith leaders, social workers my daughter, mental health officials, athletic associations associations, ymcas, ywcas boys, girls clubs, et cetera that they are all in it together, all working together. that's where it works as communities can tell you. that's where it works when everybody is in the game.

it can't be done without that kind of community building. the lessons, the efforts, the initiatives that we hope will arise from the summit are those designed to bring together coalitions to help solve the problem. but mainly so every child and every minority community in america particularly now in the muslim-american community, is able to feel like we see them. we actually see them. for who they are. ortiz said it best turkey set our goal is to really promote public safety and to have a community to be part of our national security. well national steady flows from a sense of community of close from the sense of committee. so if you are dealt out and join up treated with respect, not understood, if i can't see you then it won't work. not only will we have some

significant experience in the past and i hope we can expand on it. so let me say to all of you, and i apologize for taking as long as i did, but this is the opening salvo of this three day conference and i want to make sure we're all sort of on the same page of what we're trying to do and trying to figure out and why all of these leaders have been invited, because that's been your business. you've been trying to see, to see. not hide from, see what the problems are. and respond to and it's not going to be easy but it's necessary. and i know from my discussions in belgium last week all of europe is trying to figure this out right now. because again, although there's been a good deal, a significant amount of immigration over the

last 40 years, 50 years into europe from all over the world, it is, it is a newer phenomenon. there's a lot we can do together i think. >> vice president joe biden yesterday. live picture can from the white house briefing room as we await spokesman josh curtis giving today's white house briefing. a number of items we're expecting questions on the white house summit on violent extremism which continues today. president obama will be speaking at that summit this afternoon. you can see it live on c-span at 4:15 p.m. eastern. we also could see question about the administration's response to that texas judge's decision blocking the president's executive action on immigration a number of other items. they will come up when we bring you today's white house briefing which should start shortly. we will have a live for you here on c-span2 the while we wait vice president joe biden yesterday can use of his own on the news outlets and in social media in an npr story. when it was time for joe biden

to swear in ash carter it went well until carter started talking and joe biden called carter's wife stephanie over for a few seconds, he put both hands on carter's wife which was reminiscent of what president george w. bush did you angela merkel but by and took a step further getting really close to whisper something in her ear to the episode was launched much commentary on twitter. it was also the topic of your phone calls on this point "washington journal." if you go to a facebook page you will see where people have been offering comment on vice president joe biden. it's facebook.com/cspan. while we wait we will show you some of that swearing instrument with the new defense secretary ashton carter from yesterday.

>> [inaudible conversations] >> hello, everyone. welcome to the roosevelt room. dr. carter stephanie william carter, where is william? hey, man how are you? welcome. welcome, bill. and your daughter couldn't be present today but deputy secretary work who has been running things and has been a great, great asset for the department and general martin dempsey chairman of the joint chiefs as well as admiral james when the failed it was the vice chairman and members of the

carter transition team. i said as i walked in to ash, if anyone is made for this job, the job description that fits the person, this is the guy that fits the job description. it's kind of fitting that we're here in the roosevelt room of a lot of renaissance men from teddy to franklin, and you get sworn in in this room ash. you are a scholar, a genuine scholar, strategic military affairs and nuclear weapons policy a profoundly capable manager demonstrated time and again with universal respect and affection from the people you work with reflected in the near unanimous vote in the united states send it. last hundred and the united states senate. got the senate back in harness. ..

it made it harder for me. i'm glad you're back. perhaps the most important of all you've been a fighter like the men in uniform here today, you've been a fighter for the women and men who served in

uniform. the incoming secretary of defense like his predecessor understands that while this country's many obligations it only has one truly sacred obligation and only one truly sacred obligation is to equip and protect those we send to care for their families while they are there and when they come home. years ago when we learned that the provides the explosive devices it's hard to believe that 15 years ago people were not talking about ied it wasn't part of the vocabulary. xd% of the deaths and injuries of the troops in afghanistan. and ash carter was the guy that left into action taking care of

the troops. in the acquisition technology and logistics and the nasdaq cutie secretary, he worked like the devil to get the troops wind resistant ambush protected vehicles. and they saved lives and limbs and countless numbers for american women and men. i can remember ash i read your report and then spoke at the time on the floor of the senate and the marine corps. we had a pretty universal opposition to spend the money at the time as he remember even in some division of the reach of spend the money that was $23 billion we were trying to get to begin to build these and it's faced not only bureaucratic opposition but there was opposition on the floor of the united states senate and i had the privilege of leading the effort to get this money put

into the budget and remember before we went into the debate going around quoting you and representing your report and then in the middle of the debate when i was told by democrats and republicans, leaders and the house connects these become house connects these become of the senate armed services committee this wasn't a priori from the united states military. i called up the commandant of the marine corps. i left the floor and i suggested the absence of a quorum and went back to the cloakroom and he referenced the report as well and is said to come and i believe i'm paraphrasing the highest moral obligation he thought that it was to get these bills and so guess what we did that in the it in the argument became are we building too many. i remember standing on the floor and like a little bit like franklin roosevelt said we built

too many landing craft because we are nothing to be able to use them after this we are not going to need them very much. that was the argument at the time. good afternoon everybody. sorry for the delay getting started today. let me just mention one thing that i think many of you are already aware of but today the president selected mr. joseph clancy to serve as the director of the secret service. he's a 27 year veteran of the agency and a former special agent in charge of the presidential protective division served as the acting director since october 1 of last year. many of you will recall that director clancy stepped in at the request of the president at a rather difficult time for the agency. and over the course of the last several months, doctor clancy demonstrated the leadership frankly many of us expected him to demonstrate.

he is someone that has come based on his long track record with the agency of credibility inside the agency, and he used that credibility to put in place reforms that were recommended by the outside panel that the dhs secretary johnson had convened. so he has a lot of important work still ahead of him, but we are pleased to see his leadership this far has been recognized with this permanent appointment. with the the bath, d. want to get started on questions, and i do have two be out by 2 p.m. if you could help me stay on time i would appreciate it. thank you. >> when the outside groups that reviewed and made recommendations for the secret service recommended fairly strongly that the administration higher in outsider for the job they stated only from outside the secret service remove from

organizational commitment into personal relationships would be able to be honest and do the honest reassessment it is required. why did the president -- >> anytime you're making a personal decision like this you are going to weigh somebody's personal attachments inside the agencies for their ability to take a cold assessment of what actually needs to be changed in the agency said they can live up to the standards they set for themselves. mr. clancy the last several months has demonstrated that he was willing to conduct a candid clear i'd assessment of the shortcomings of the agency and to look at the needed reforms and implement. and that precisely is why he has been promoted to this permanent world. his willingness to use his credibility in the agency to implement these reforms in some ways is the best of both worlds.

that's not just the assessment of the president, that's also the assessment of at least one member of this panel. tom, who you recall as the justice official in the administration's acting director clancy is a dedicated public servant who has made important changes since he began the job and started the process of reforming the service. i look forward to working with him as he continued to implement the panel's organization. i think that is a clear indication of at least one member of the panel who has spent a lot of time thinking about what kind of changes are needed at the agency and recognized mr. clancy was the right person for the job because he had the right credibility within the organization to implement successfully the kind of changes but at least the outside panel believes are necessary. the neck to the president consider other candidates or was mr. clancy, once he became acting director going through the job review to make sure that he could carry out if he became

permanent? >> i don't want to get into sort of the inner workings of the personnel process but it wasn't at all a foregone conclusion when mr. clancy is giving the acting position that he would necessarily be asked to stay on as a permanent director. but certainly, his solid performance the last several months and implementing changes in the agency i think certainly serve him well as he was considered for the position. >> on another subject, is the administration limiting the amount of information that it's giving to israel regarding the nuclear talks? >> i've certainly seen some reports to that effect. and i know that there are some initial reports that indicate the united state is no longer communicating with our allies in israel on negotiations with iran

and that's false. there are a number of meetings that have taken place in the last 20 are scheduled for the weeks ahead that indicates the continued close communication and coordination between the u.s. national security officials and the israeli counterparts. for example i can tell you phil gordon, the white house coordinator at the middle east for the council met on monday with israel's minister of intelligence. the focus of the discussion was principally on the iran negotiations. the national security adviser susan rice at the white house maintains regular contact with her counterpart. and in fact i understand mr. cohen is expected to be at the white house later this week for consultations with doctor rice. i can tell you that under secretary of state and the sherman, who is the principal negotiator for the united states in these talks with the p+1 has

met with the national security adviser into the minister of intelligence on a number of occasions and those kind of consultations are going to continue. we've also been very clear about the fact that the united states isn't going to be in the position of negotiating disagreements in public. particularly, when we see that there is a continued practice of cherry picking specific pieces of information and using them out of context to distort the negotiating position of the united states. so, there is an obligation when you participate in these kind of initiation is to ensure that those consultations and those negotiations are carried out in good faith. and that means giving negotiators the room and the space to negotiate. but at the same time, i can tell you that at least based on the one assessment that i've heard i would a college -- acknowledged

a precise way. you can make the case that there is no country that is not participating in the negotiations that has a greater insight into what is going on at the negotiating table and it's not a coincidence. you can also make a strong case that there is no nation representing the stake in the outcome of these negotiations and that is principally by not principally wide but an important reason why the president has pursued this diplomatic openness. the reason because he believes it is in the national security interest of the united states of america for iran not to obtain nuclear weapons and there is a way to do that if we get the regime to voluntarily and in a verifiable way give up the pursuit of the weapon and make it clear that they are not going to obtain a weapon and put in place the monitoring regime to

make sure they do not acquire one and that is the goal of these negotiations. the united states has a stake in this outcome but so does israel and that is why we will continue to consult with him about these talks. hispanics give our consulting that you are worried about cherry picking. so does that still when it the information that you provided during those consultations? >> i won't get into the details of those conversations for obvious reasons but i think it is fair to say it is mindful of the need to not negotiate in public and to ensure that the information is discussed in the negotiating table is not taken out of context and publicized in the way that distorts the negotiating position of the united states and our allies. >> there is no question some of the things the israelis have said characterizing the negotiating position hasn't been

accurate. there is no question about that. >> quick question on the immigration law suit. how does that decision affect the dhs funding? >> all along we have made it clear that the republican leadership in the congress has a responsibility to ensure the department of homeland security is properly funded. you have heard me say and a couple of occasions it is hard to imagine that there is a good time to muck around in the department of the homeland security but it seems i get particularly bad time to do it. and the other thing that i would point out is senator mcconnell himself indicated that at the end of last year and at the beginning of this year republicans finally had an opportunity to demonstrate they could be what he described as a responsible right of center governing majority. it's completely irresponsible to allow a political dispute to

interfere with the ability of the united states congress to fund the department of homeland security. and it certainly isn't going to be good for the ongoing efforts to protect the american people and it certainly isn't going to be fair to the hundreds of thousands of the department of homeland security employees who now may be facing a prospect of going to work to keep the country safe but not getting the paycheck for it. that doesn't seem fair and it certainly isn't in the best interest of the united states of america. >> will the administration seek an emergency stay of the system? >> this is our legal strategy going forward to be determined by the department of justice and they've indicated the next couple of days they will have more information about how we will pursue that strategy but that strategy will certainly include an appeal because we don't believe that it's a fair

and accurate reading of the law. >> if the injunction remained in place so that he wouldn't be able to implement the program why not wait until that whole process is complete? >> the questions that you are raising are the questions that the attorneys are considering right now and in the next couple of days i would anticipate that we would have more information about the way forward. >> peristaltic pairing to implement this program and they will be able to prevail. what is the assessment of how long it is going to take? >> this is for the attorneys of the justice to evaluating strategies that we can pursue that will eat all of the legal process as soon as possible because we are confident that when this is resolved in the legal system that the position

of the government the position of the administration will prevail. that's because the steps the president announced at the end of last year are entirely consistent in the kind of steps the previous presidents have taken. previous presidents of both parties i might add. is, we are confident there is a solid legal foundation for the actions the president announced and more importantly we are confident the actions the president announced are the right thing for the country. >> there is no way of telling them how long it is going to last. >> we certainly would hope that we can move as quickly as we can through the legal system so the situation can be resolved if we can move forward with implementing a set of decisions that are again, clearly consistent with the law and in the best interest of the united states. >> in another topic, do you have any reaction to the foreign-policy team that was

announced. >> what does the white house make of what's going on bringing up some issues against the president. now that they've they have reached out to the united states asking washington to break the covering up in its negotiations. what is your take on what's going on? >> as a topline matter it is a significant economy and significant player in our relations throughout the americas. the president has on a number of occasions on a couple previous occasions the opportunity to meet the leader of argentina because they are said between

the two countries. in any time in a country like argentina with whom we have a strong relationship or questions are raised about the rule of law and justice so i don't have anything specific to say about where things stand in the process or whether or not there is an appropriate role for the government to play in all that but it is certainly something that we continue to monitor very closely and it's a reflection. it's in the relationship to answer the question. at this point he continues to be a situation where we are going to monitor. >> can you talk to us about what

transpired and the filing of the top tiers, can you talk about that? >> i can tell you that you named some of the specific reforms that the director has implemented since taking over the leadership of the agency and and this all occurred within the last few months. since taking office as the acting director he conduct a comprehensive assessment to determine the root cause behind the recent shortcomings in the agency. he's directed all personnel who operate on the white house grounds to undergo the additional classrooms and practical trainings. he sought additional funding for training in a the training and the court meant for the secret service personnel. and as you mentioned, he swiftly implemented the changes that were recommended by the blue ribbon panel.

>> [inaudible] >> i don't have the specific numbers in front of me that you can check with the secret service and they may be able to give you more information. this is consistent with what the director clancy has done to engage with the rank-and-file agency. we are talking about men and women on a regular basis willing to put their lives on the line to protect the president and first family and white house grounds and all of us that work here on a dalia basis. we appreciate the service and with that agency has done is set a very high standard of service and professionalism. and there have been some instances where they have fallen short either by their own acknowledgment and they have to do the work of ensuring that the agency and the men and women that serve in that agency is up to that very high standard and certainly those of us that have had an opportunity to watch the director clancy he understands

his job and holds himself to a high standard of professionalism and he would anticipate that his style of leadership will have a positive effect on the agency and that he will continue to implement the reforms that are needed to ensure they live up to the high standard. >> since the judge's ruling we understand immigration isn't just about people in the country is about the differences of people in the country. what about african and caribbean immigrants coming into the country because there are other organizations that worked to help push through and what does this do for african and caribbean immigrants as well? >> there are a couple of things about this most recent court

ruling that are important for people to keep in mind. first, it does not apply to the action that the president took back in 2012 to grant the relief to the dreamers. these are immigrants that came to the country as children and they were raised essentially as americans. the rule didn't apply to the exercise executive action. they also didn't apply to the direction that our law enforcement officers received from the homeland of security in the prosecutorial discretion. this is something the president felt strongly about the agency used the limited resources to focus on those that pose the most prominent threat to the communities across the country. this means law enforcement officials at the department of homeland security and particularly as it relates to the agencies that handle immigration are focused on

conducting or people that are involved in the criminal activity, that essentially the actions of the law enforcement agencies should be focused on telling, not on the family. and that is something that will remain in place even after the most recent court ruling. but some of the questions and issues that you are raising can be best addressed by congress actually taking the kind of legislative action that is long overdue command that is legislative action that would bring about the commonsense bipartisan reform to our broken immigration system and that means not just dealing with the millions of people that currently live in the shadows but also putting in place the needed reform of the legal immigration system. that is why even though the president has taken these executive actions that will have a positive impact on the immigration system and on our economy that we are going to continue to call on congress to

take the steps that only they can take to address some of these problems. >> at 11.4 million people. but did you get the minority groups that he wanted to focus on they made a strong push for african american. are there numbers you were looking for in this? >> the more granular detail about the numbers included in the latest enrollment period would be available later from the hhs. i can tell you in the last enrollment we had success dragging down the uninsured rate in the african-american and latino community as much as we did among people all across the country. one of the most important steps we could see the states take that would have an impact on these numbers would be for the remaining states deadlocked medicaid expansion to follow through and actually expanded medicaid to cover a lot more

people not just african-americans and latinos but americans of all races and it certainly would have a positive impact to drag down the uninsured rate in the country. >> [inaudible] >> they've reduced the uninsured rate in the last period by 6.8% in the community and 7.7% in the latino community. and when we have updated numbers we will release them. >> [inaudible] what is the concern of isis in libya >> they can tell you in general that we strongly support the effort efforts of the united nations and to the secretary-general to facilitate the formation of the national unity government to bring the public will solution to the ongoing political security and

institutional crisis in this country. what we have seen is extremists try to capitalize on instability in the country to carry out the acts of violence and that's why we continue to be concerned about the situation and we try to get the situation under control to try to stabilize the representative central government in libya. there's a special representative working on the task right now and we are supportive of his efforts. >> i don't have any conversations specifically to read. the president was forceful in condemning the killing is not just over the weekend but also including in the la times today. so we certainly have an important military to military relationship with the government

of play an important role in the counterterrorism activities and in terms of the specific conversations i don't have any information about that. >> one of the criticisms is that it was dealing with the causes of violent extremism. does it need to deal with the situation on the ground war more and the strategy of the united states and other partners? >> it's a good question. some vast week convened over the course of the week discussed the comprehensive strategy to eradicate those that pose a harm to the united states. we do have a strategy for that and one component is to ensure that we counter the violent extremism and we want to mitigate the ability to capitalize on the social media to try to recruit the cause.

but there are other critically important element of the strategy not the least of which is the military strategy. the best example of that is the success that we have had in the terrorist leaders off the battlefield in every place from pakistan to yemen to somalia and even iraq and syria. as a military strategy, there are a couple months ago david cho in the undersecretary of the treasury to talk about the efforts and to counter the finance organizations including isis and we have seen them being able to shut off the financing is a critical way that we can reduce the ability to fund their ongoing efforts. [inaudible] >> i guess the way you phrased the question is phrase the question is those are not mutually exclusive. i think there will be a number of things important about the summit and i think the thing i find most interesting is there

are already communities across the country coordinated efforts to counter extremist messaging that is aimed vulnerable youth across the country so we are going to hear in the context from the law enforcement and the political leaders and from boston, minneapolis and los angeles the communities that have devoted a significant time and effort to try to counter that messaging into the communities and the cities and to the extent they can talk about the most success that they have had that the local leaders and other communities can apply i think those are tangible results and tangible ideas other leaders can employ to nick sure they are protecting people in the community. >> quickly on dhs it seems a likely resolution to the funding problem is a