. i think it started listening >> i think that is a wonderful way to think about this. one of the points of trying to make when we look at the money that we spend in the benefits that accrue we should not just look at the accounts label global health when you are running programs that build in a peace the promote there ability to have influence, whether or not that is a health line item are not pay bills better local health systems. as we are reviewing the budget is important to pay attention to the fact that sometimes the titles on the line items don't necessarily translate. >> thank you. thank you for participating. i think each of you in your own way. completely dedicated because i can see how close we are

and the damage be done if we back off now. in a new cycle for bad news maybe we will get five seconds of good news from what you have had the safe. one thing i have learned is if we get any extra money we will go into data collection it's it's all of you, god bless. you represent the best in mankind. you will have a friend in this committee. this committee stands in recess subject to call the chair. we chair. we keep the record of questions until the close of business friday may 15. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] is. >> thank you. thank you so much.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> just go ahead and pose. >> sounds good.

>> next on c-span2 the commander of the army's asymmetric warfare training center talks about urban combat training. senator ted cruz talks about his opposition to a nuclear agreement with iran. later,. later, a senate hearing on the epa proposed rules on powerplant emissions. >> tomorrow atty. gen. loretto actual testify at a senate hearing on the 2016 justice department budget. live coverage begins at 1030 eastern time on c-span. also tomorrow british voters go to the polls to elect a new parliament. live election coverage from itv was studio analysis and results and predictions about the uk government. live coverage us before the polls close at 4:55 p.m. eastern.

>> they were wives and mothers some had children and grandchildren who became president of politicians. they dealt with the joys and trials of motherhood the pleasure and sometimes chaos of raising small children and the tragedy of loss. just in time for mother's day 1st ladies much of the personal lives of every 1st lady in american history, many of whom raise families in the white house. lively stories of fascinating women and illuminating, entertaining and inspiring read based on original interviews from c-span first lady series published the public affairs available in hardcover or e-book and makes a great mother's day gift. from your favorite bookstore or online bookseller.

>> commanding the army's asymmetric warfare training center command facility that trains troops for urban combat. he talked about the center on wednesdays washington journal. this is an hour. coming up in our last hour, we will head to fort ap help military base in virginia where pager will pick it up from here. host: the reason we are on this base, it is about an hour and a half south of washington dc. the reason we are here is a -- is it is the site of asymmetrical warfare training. complete with multilevel buildings, a subway, a train station, even underground tunnel . the purpose is to have u.s. troops develop skills needed to fight in urban conflict zones. here to join us about the center and its mission is colonel john petkosek.

he is the commander of the u.s. army asymmetric warfare group. thank you for joining us. guest: thank you for having me. host: can you tell us about these buildings behind us? guest: what i'd like to do is just put it into context in terms of why we have the training center here. the asymmetric warfare group provides operational advisory support for the army and joint force commanders. what that means is for things for the service here we provide operational advisers around the world where u.s. forces are deployed. we do that too identify capability gaps. we develop solutions for those gaps and then integrate them into the army system. that is what the facility is designed for. it is a place to develop solutions for the army. it serves a secondary role as an army training center. host: these buildings are life-sized in realistic, but they are fake and a sense and used for training? guest: exactly. the army has always looked at

the need to have a diverse place to train. in the past we had training areas that were simple concrete buildings but they did not provide the text sure that you need to get that our soldiers -- soldiers need today. the buildings of glass, windows, doors, all the things that a soldier would encounter. host: give us a feel of what we will find. this is an embassy behind us but we have some other structures as well. guest: what we do see is the place is designed to be able to change to adapt to whatever environment our soldiers might be in. there is a six story building out there that might be and never see one day and maybe a hotel on another and eight warehouse on another. we can change the settings to meet the kind of environment our soldiers are going to face. we are trying to provide a place that can a variety of training areas so we get the most utility for it.

host: you are going to see video of soldiers at a been here at the asymmetric warfare training center, running scenarios in these various types of buildings. you will see a lot of examples that we will get the kernel to talk about. we will talk more about the purpose of the center. the mission of the group. if you have questions about this kind of training that goes on, about the center, about how it is used worldwide, now's your chance to do so would john -- colonel john petkosek. here's how you can call. on the eastern and central time (202) 748-8000. in the central and pacific time zones you can call (202) 748-8001. other areas of the world can call (202) 748-8002. tell us a little about the places where once they are trained, where the soldiers go? what kind of involvement are the and worldwide? guest: soldiers today are employed all over the world.

when you look at with the u.s. army is doing and the u.s. military, we are doing different things. the recent ebola outbreak in africa. there were army soldiers helping beers we can nepal. -- earthquake in nepal. they can be anywhere around the world. the facility is designed for us to replicate the kind of environments we may face around the world. when you talked about the subterranean portion of it, that is a big thing. we have to look at something -- if they have to go in to a subterranean environment. the first time they are doing it should not be the first of a try to save a life. these are the types of equipment i need to the commerce these missions. it supports soldiers deployed all around the world. that is what it is built for and it is tailorable so that we can replicate any environment. host: give some examples of

recent training is gone in here and areas of the world where they have been involved?. guest: i think one of the best ones you talked about was the tunnels and subterranean pieces. what we realized early on is you see the environment around the world. sometimes you see continuity there. when we originally designed the facility, we were heavily engaged in afghanistan. at that time, the soldiers faced these water draining systems. they had to understand how to go down into those. how to fight in those things. it started out that way. only look at the subterranean threat in other places around the world with economic plight you look at -- where that can apply, you look at bunkers were chemical weapons i be stored in a country like syria where they took them out and destroyed them. they have to be able to go and do that.

this is a threat you might see anywhere around the world. host: in fact, we shot video of people in 1500 feet of tunnels. we have video of it of soldiers and training. that is what goes on here the asymmetric warfare training center. we are here to take your call and talk to colonel john petkosek, the commander of the asymmetric warfare group. the first call is from herbie in mississippi. go ahead. caller: good morning. these buildings look like united states buildings. the way the police are throwing back -- black people in the inner cities in the uprising here in america, it looks like we are getting to fight against her own people here. it looks like you guys are trading to invade the inner-city . it is mighty strange because everyone is training to do some thing overseas. it does not look like overseas training.

it looks like this is right here in america and that is kind of scary because of the situation where he can i get police locked up for what they are doing to civilians. and the stuff that is going on here in america. it is kind of damaging. you all are doing so they secretly here, i think. guest: herbie, that is not really true. what we are doing is training u.s. soldiers to operate in any contingency around the world. when you look at what the u.s. army soldiers do, they have to be able to operate from disaster relief to high-end military conflict. that is what the center is designed for. to be able to replicate any environment we might have to fight in. as we said, we are in virginia and that is where we live. we are stationed in the united states. the center is located here, so it is convenient and easy to train on. really what you said is far from the truth.

we want to be able to replicate any environment where our soldiers might be able to fight. as a said earlier, we used to train very rudimentary training facilities with simple concrete buildings and our soldiers were not prepared as well as they could of been by just adding a little bit of texture. this facility is designed to increase soldier survivability and save lives in combat. that is what it is for. i think if we put it in that context, that is what the u.s. army is doing with this facility. (202) 748-8000 for those of you in the eastern and central time zones. for mountain and pacific, (202) 748-8001. for active military, (202) 748-8002. our guest is colonel john petkosek. john from pennsylvania, you are up next. caller: hi. i am concerned like the last caller. i sell your facility on the internet. i saw someone in john deere caps

saying please is a my guns. i've seen your videotape. what safety, or what do we have to guarantee us that these training facilities are not being used to confiscate our guns in case of another economic meltdown like we had in 2008? like the gun confiscation that went on during katrina. u.s. troops in afghanistan walk the streets of new orleans and confiscated every gun that was there. what do we have to guarantee that we will be protected from that non-happening in mass like it did in katrina. thousands of guns were confiscated by regular army and national guard units. guest: i cannot speak about what happened in katrina, but i can say i do know everything on the internet is not necessarily true as we see it.

you come back to what the facility is designed for, we shared very openly. there are no secrets to be had. the united states constitution is what protects us and that is what the u.s. army is for, to support and defend the constitution. and i would hope that all of us -- our listeners and viewers out there would appreciate what our soldiers are doing for this on a day-to-day basis. it is the opposite of what you articulated. host: if the idea is to come up with solutions for situations across the world, how are the solutions? developed who comes up with the strategies? guest: when you talk about the subterranean piece, i think that is a great example. when they realized we had difficulty whether it was operating in afghanistan or in bunkers or how are your gun get into these places, what we were able to do is look at some the historical samples -- examples in the past.

the last on the u.s. army faced a threat like this was in the tunnels of vietnam. we looked at howard that our soldiers fight their. how do they fight in open our. -- open our --okinawa. we use the facility to build underground bunkers and realize if there is a metal door, how will we breach the door? once we do that, how will we get in there? what if we have to evacuate casualties? we develop material and nonmaterial solutions. a particular way to carry your kit. or we realized he might need a different kind of get to operate in an environment. how are you going to brief? one of their fire and smoke? how are you going to operate? that is one of the great things we do here. once we do that, what is really special about this particular organization and what we do for the army's we have the ability to take that we weren't and institutionalize it. that is what we -- it is about. how quickly can the army learn.

when we talk about what is special about the u.s. army, it is not about the tanks of the ships or the things that we have. it is the people. and our ability to adapt rapidly , more rapidly than our adversary is really what is special. i think this is a location where we can adapt quickly and you can see change happen right here. host: before we go too far in this topic of asymmetric warfare, defined what it is in english. it defines a change in nature as far of those that would use this type of warfare and can't -- conflict zones. guest: what i think about is there are two dissimilar forces. the way that they approach a fight with equipment they have. you don't attack an enemy's strength, you attack his weakness. the best way to articulate is the way world war i was fought. that was asymmetric conflict. it was all about who of the most

guns and him and hammy soldiers you can get on the ground. the armies were essentially the same and it was whoever could get there the fastest with the most. you had to similar forces clashing. at a point during that war summit he came over the idea and said what we put a machine gun under the cover of armor and we called it a tank. that is an asymmetric approach to try to overcome your adversary by attacking his weaker point. that would be able to attack with a tank. that is how warfare evolved. if you're going to succeed in conflict, you don't want to attack your enemies strength. when you going to a config like that anyone soldiers to survive and come home, you want to make sure it is not a fair fight in that u.s. soldiers are equipped as best they can and best repair for that type of conflict. host: our urban centers the new battleground? guest: when you look at what is happening in the world today there is a huge population growth. you look at the growth of the megacities all of the world

where there are millions of people in very close quarters. if conflict is going to occur in regions like that, we want our soldiers to be able to understand what they have to apply in those environments. you want to do it here in virginia the first time we call on her shoulder to have to figure out how you're going to get to the top of that five-story building with no elevator, no rope. host: lenny from arizona you are next. ahead. caller: good morning, colonel. i went to alert our citizens and get an excellent nation if we could for jade helm 15 which is all over the internet. it involves 10 states and there will be civilians participating in towns like big spring, texas. could you explain the magnitude of that and what the purpose that is? apparently they have crisis actors in their enemy soldiers dressed in uniform and

nonuniform. critics when it to us? thank you very much. guest: unfortunately it is not selling i am familiar with. i cannot really explain that. i do know that those type of things are things that we do here. we give our soldiers the opportunity to work in an environment where there are civilians and soldiers. one of the things i could talk about, unfortunately, i don't know about that particular exercise, but when you talk about soldiers operating in an environment with civilians one of the things were looking at here is a program of using autonomous robots. we take a number of robots that can operate independently and walk up and down the streets. we can dress them up and uniforms or a civilians and we can use it as a chance here to trainer soldiers how to discriminate between primitive -- friendly forces and those that need to be evacuated. that is one of the great things

we can do here at ap hill. host: tim in florida, your next. caller: good morning. i wanted to do differentiate the people between the politicians and the patriotic individuals like the kernel there. i am wondering when we are doing international foreign warfare -- urban warfare, where be going around the world and getting involved in international urban warfare? we are hated everywhere. people come here to do things i could do in texas. there is only one of you were that. why can't people mind their own business? i thought we were broken only have this ongoing military in parts of the country. a lot of the people i speak for, we support people in the military. we do not support people's formulae these wacko policies by

overthrowing the government of ukraine and putting in people who were not elected because there's trouble with russia and they are in the crimea and they are interfering with the u.s. starting problems in the middle east. thank you. guest: you bring up a good point. the world it has changed quite a bit in just a short time that i've been in the military. when i first came into the army what really drove the military strategy was something called airland battle. we had to win against an enemy. i was a lieutenant in the cold war was still going on. that was the war we faced. it was a math problem. we had have better tanks and aircraft and we had to be able to fight a force that we know in a very symmetric way. the world has changed. the army has changed with it. the army has change their operating concept to say what we want our soldiers to be able to do now? that is fight in a

conflict -- complex world were asymmetric threats are out there. this facility that you see here today is meant to replicate that so we can prepare our soldiers to do things where we might not know they're going to operate in the future. i really think that the facility itself here is designed to serve our army and help our soldiers face the challenges they are going to face in the future. we really do not know what that is going to be. it is a very, gated world of their and things have changed. we want our soldiers to be agile and adaptive leaders and soldiers so we can do, is what our nation asks host:. host:host: ford ap hill in virginia. 300 acres devoted to these buildings reaction you this morning. also, tunnels underneath and very structures on the campus. justin from petaluma california. go ahead. guest:caller: i have to reflect what

a lot of the colors have said today. this is just very scary stuff. this looks almost like american cities rather than being prepared for what we are going to face in other countries. as the colonel said, we have be prepared for this and all of that. this is almost almost -- every caller and i think everyone understands this is a very scary and new thing that the military looks like it is going to be taking on. they could be against its very own people. the american people. everything i have seen except for the one mosque has been in

english, main street. main street. host: but our guest respond. guest: what i would say is that it is a very, gated world out there and you should not find it scary or frightening. it is reassuring that we are fighting our soldiers to be able to operate across a broad spectrum of facilities. as i said, i have been in the army a little bit of time and we walked through the woods learning how to fight in the would like and how to navigate with a map and compass and areas like that. and then came to realize that when we were called by our nation to perform a mission, we were operating in an urban center. and how we did that, whether it was us helping soldiers operating in the current conflicts that we must recently operated in, all of those were it in an urban environment. we had to learn how to operate in and among were people are. the u.s. military as we operate

across the world, there are enemy forces and they makes themselves and with family forces all the time. the robot example i gave. we need to be able to have her soldiers discriminate between what is friendly and what is enemy. when i was growing up in the army, one of the things he used to say about our soldiers is no soldier is doing the right thing when they do the right thing when nobody is watching them. our soldiers are disciplined in doing the right thing. as the world changed, we have to build ask her soldiers to do the right thing when the whole world is watching because there are a lot of things out there on the internet. whatever we do is going to be out there and broadcast. we don't have any secrets to hide. this is a great opportunity for us to showcase what are people -- our soldiers are doing for the iraqi people. -- american people. host: you do have a church in a

mosque. what are the relevance of the structures? guest: it could be a church today and a town hall tomorrow in a store the next day. what is important about the environment as we replicated, we wonder soldiers to be sensitive to the fact that all these things are going to be encountered when they are out operating around the world. we all know the media reports of soldiers causing harm to our cause by being insensitive to those things. i haven't is located here, we can sensitizer soldiers to the fact that you will be operating around places that are since -- sensitive. that is the kind of thing people will be emotional about how we want them comfortable operating in an environment here in virginia because for they go forward. -- before they go forward. an earlier commander of the group used to say you have to become double being uncomfortable. -- the comfortable being

uncomfortable. we have to not only become double in these -- and be comparable in these situations, our soldiers have to be able to thrive. that is what we are doing here at fort ap hill. we are providing all these cues that'll make them think because that is what we want our soldiers today. our motto is think, adapt, and participate. that is what we want our soldiers to do in virginia before they go into harms way. host: you are hearing from colonel john petkosek, talking about this training center and asymmetric warfare. next is vincent in dayton, ohio. go dayton ohio, thanks for holding on. >> caller: mike question is for the national guard unit and the law enforcement authorities

also using the center for their training. >> guest: no all different types use of this movie. the national asset, it's a military asset so we use it at all different times. even this afternoon is going to be used by unit coming in as a law enforcement unit to understand how do i operate in this environment so it's not just the army. it's enjoyed for so we use this facility by the army navy air force marines, other government agencies and they use it in order to basically come here to ask what we want them to do wherever that may be around the world so its use by number of organizations and all those organizations are able to benefit from the investment that the american people made in virginia. really that's what we are trying to do here. we built this facility and it's great. it's one of those places where

you can broaden training to things we may not have thought of. that is really what we are trying to achieve. sometimes we learn from our partners in that respect. we may work with other organizations as say say hey here's the way you can go down into a tunnel and be able to breathe that we may not have known as an army. >> host: are there and national partners the coming year and trained? just go they have come here periodically. for example one of the things we might do is typically what we can do as a warfare group as we work with other u.s. organizations that we may not necessarily work with law enforcement but other elements to. one of the things we have looked at is when soldiers come up upon a facility at night b. and drug lab are one of those kinds of

facilities. we replicate those here and bring the men so they can train with them here before they are faced with bad in reality. it comes to mind because one of our recent papers -- partners we have been working with is the mexicans. they come to the facility and say how do you differentiate between an ied fab and a drug lab and when i go into these facilities they are dangerous and they can hurt you. if you break a glass jar it could injure soldiers or law enforcement. that's what we want them to do here before they face a number like read. >> host: arizona, good morning. >> caller: good morning. it's so nice to hear you. i want to thank you put it want to thank you and i want to thank army-navy reserve everybody because if anything ever happens to the united states i hope that

you guys are standing next to me and my family. the last seven years i feel i have not been safe here in the united states. me and a whole bunch of people. keep doing what you are doing. train those militaries because one day we will need them to save us. so thank you. and god bless you. >> guest: thank you. i really appreciate that and that's why i thank you for this opportunity because it's a chance for us to show you what our soldiers are doing for the nation. it's really our obligation because there's not a lot of chances where they can interact with the people. the soldiers are from every state in the nation and its us. we are reflective of our society and it gives us a chance to highlight whether great things are soldiers for doing the

nation around the world. >> host: rebecca from mechanicsville virginia, go ahead. >> caller: hi. thank you so much for all you are doing for the people are trained there and deployed. i know you work hard every day and thank you for that. my question is how long would it typically take the unit to say they will be trained before they are sent out into the field? >> it really depends on the unit and what they are called on to do so i can answer that specifically. typically they come for sure periods of time. it's not a place where there are a lot of soldiers stationed in train. a little while ago in a previous life i was stationed in ft. drum new york even before the facility was built down here. we came down to train for period of several weeks because of the great facilities down here. this was a couple of years

before this was built. i would have been able to benefit from these facilities very typically it's a couple of weeks the soldiers come and go here to train. one thing i might like to highlight is one of the things that we do is take a two-week period to help our soldiers become adapted. a lot of people talk about when you look at soldiers in what you want them to be and how do you want them to be able to react? do you want them to be competent and responsible and trustworthy? all the tangible things you want and not only soldiers but citizens as well. those things are hard to train them in. how do you make someone responsible and adaptable? that's part of our effort. we bring them through and you saw some of our soldiers training. we build scenarios to challenge our soldiers put them in comfortable situation so they can make the right decisions and

we send our soldiers around the world. everybody is watching. >> (202)748-8000 and 202-48-8001 for mountain and pacific timezones and fractal military we want to get your thoughts as well (202)748-8002. we have showed you some of the scenarios that go on at the warfare training center. one of the things we had a chance to experience with some of the shooting skills training that the soldiers receive. we talked with the lieutenant about it. [applause] >> what you see your individual soldiers from warfare groups preparing for training. what they're going to do specifically as they are going to on some protective masks like gas masks and do marksmanship training up to 50 meters in the

near future. that is the for crist -- focus for this morning's event and we have done training with both pistol and rifle set varying distances. >> host: why is this skill training important to the overall asymmetric warfare? >> guest: we are by nature and not opt -- an army unit that goes out and buys joint force units throughout the world. some of those areas that like iraq and afghanistan for example so it's important that your combat skills defensive or offensive are well-known so this is part of any units preparation for those eventualities. we just happen to focus on the pistol and rifle marksmanship more than your average in it because we just don't know what sort of situation are advisers going to encounter especially when they are embedded with other units whether it's an army

unit or a joint force unit. >> host: again that was lieutenant colonel justin sapp. let's go to mechanicsville virginia. you are on with colonel john petkosek commander of the asymmetric warfare. go ahead. >> caller: good morning sir. i would like to know how training complex with the -- act. and i will take my answer off the air. thanks. >> guest: no thank you for your call. it doesn't conflict with the posse comitatus act. the united states army doesn't do law enforcement duty. that's the duty of our civil authorities but we do operate within an environment where there are civilians and soldiers operating together. so again to answer your question directly it doesn't but what it really does is provide an opportunity to become accustomed

to operating in areas where civilians are operating to make our soldiers better to perform their missions. there are a number of basic skills that we want our soldiers to be able to do. you want them to be able to shoot and hit their target and to maneuver. those are the essentials of any military operation but when you overlay that on top of the complex world that we live and we want our soldiers to be able to operate. it's not whether you will hit the target. it's whether you should shoot or should not shoot and be able to make decisions very rapidly in a complex environment. that is what we are trying to teach them. >> host: you talk about civilian and military together. one of the replicas here outside as they have retro station. why is it important to have that and how do you account for civilians dealing with civilians in these situations? >> guest: no our soldiers have

to be able to operate in all different environments and what you saw down there but like a metro station and we roll out the metro flatbed rail car and a hidden gun that our soldiers go after. the next day we roll it out and put chemical weapons that our soldiers will have to go after. just like any facility here we are able to -- but in this case when you look at underground rail systems those are the in the most major cities in the country today and it's one of those things that i can't think of another place where i have trained for it would have the opportunity to understand what would happen if i encountered a facility like that. what decisions do we want our soldiers to make when we go down there and turn off the lights in the place is filled with smoke and you are trying to recover someone that might be injured or you were trying to fight your way through it. let's do that on ap hill and

provide our soldiers that complex environment that they can train him before we asked them to do it read. >> host: springfield massachusetts you are next. >> caller: good morning, thank you. i came across police officers training for some kind of urban warfare. my question is with terminologies in a global society but in the patriot act being in place and using the terminology at any time this asymmetrical army be used here in the united states against the people? >> guest: well the short answer is no and it's really not an asymmetrical army per se. what you bring up the sinister sing point. you see training in a facility where maybe they have to close off football so they can train it what will they do if they have to react? it's like what happened in kenya a short time ago where there was an event where people had to

train to do that. instead of shutting down law enforcement training ap hill they can replicated here and get those text makes -- techniques down so they can do what we asked them to do without it being an imposition on the environment we live in. we have talked about the metro station. that's another great example. you commute to work each day and i would pre-pretty disappointed if it wasn't running on time because someone else was training in there so we can do that kind of thing here and not inconvenience or our day-to-day lives. >> host: talking about training in international areas are the considerations if anything happened to the united states and how they army deals with some? >> guest: pedro you know one of the missions of for example the national guard is to react in the case of a national emergency and that there was an emergency we would provide relief as they have done on numerous occasions whether in

floods or hurricanes. this is the kind of thing they could do is get an opportunity to do that. i know what the reason hurricane that we had a few years ago in new york there were metro stations were flooded. this would be how you could figure out those techniques if the military is called on. you want to make sure that they are ready to perform most missions. that's one of those things that the army doesn't have a lot of luck surrey. when we are called on we are expected to be there and to do whatever we are asked to do. one wouldn't expect this to say wait a couple of weeks. that is something we hadn't thought about. let's get ready for it now. when the american people call on the military to perform a mission we expect them to be ready and that is what we are both to do. we are able to look at unconventional things that we might ask our soldiers to do.

>> host: david from colleen texas hi go ahead. >> caller: i would like to comment i am retired military and in the late 80s we did training at fort hood. being a tank commander helped our team our platoon to actually learn how to fight in armored warfare so when we went overseas we knew what to do. everybody knew what they had to do. as a tanker you never get off your tank unless you have to but if something happens to your vehicle and you are on foot you know what to do with the infantry or the medics or whoever to survive. and all of our soldiers and airmen and marine corps need to go to training because they need it when they go overseas. >> guest: no i really appreciate that comment. i myself have served in the

number can attend a few years ago in the battle of fallujah had the opportunity to participate in that part of the conflict. as you talk about armored vehicles operating in an urban environment is something we didn't train on. when i was training before we went to iraq we trained on larger ranges in germany. we looked at how will we engage enemy tanks had the range of 200 meters. we were called upon to do it we were moving down the streets of fallujah with m-1 tanks engaging the enemy and a very close range. i wish i would have had that training before we were called to do it. >> host: if i understand correctly each warfare group started dealing with ieds. guess that that's correct pedro. as the complex involved in music of the enemy engaged in an asymmetric way. the enemy engaged is with ieds which was something we didn't

face very often. explosive devices were a threat to our vehicles and our vehicles weren't equipped to deal with that. the asymmetric warfare group what we were chartered with doing was let's look at these gaps identify these gaps so we can be prepared for them beforehand and you talked about the ied. the world has changed in the last 10 years since the group was formed. when you think about what we are seeing on television, an example is a small unmanned aerial system s.w.a.t. copters and i remember during the super bowl they put out copters and they were flying them around. even in d.c. you would see one that landed in unexpected area. this is an asymmetric threat. so that is one of the missions of the asymmetric warfare. we look at this and say how can

we use this? how can the enemy is it's so unlike the encounter we had previously with the ieds to prepare our soldiers how to react to that and this is one of those places we have done that. it's an example of a short time ago at this training center we would run the platoon through this area and bring in small little copters and see how they would react to them. then we were able to say what should you be doing and how do you identify that? how do you stop it and what are you reporting back? that's exactly the kind of thing we do here at ap hill is developed procedures to counter emerging threats just like we did with the improvised explosive devices. >> john buffalo new york, go ahead read. hi folks. let us not kid ourselves, this country is never again going to send its troops into mass urban warfare. that's all gone.

as we get into a situation where someone is going to ask us to take out the whole city of people are a bunch of terrorists we are going to wind it up. there is no question. this facility is to train the soldiers. the flight in american urban cities and it's coming folks. 25 years ago. >> host: so caller let me ask -- >> caller: let me finish please. after they drop the wall and went into poland and i was appalled to find out that people were required to carry identification with them at all times and let the government know where they were. i was appalled at that being an american citizen read that was 25 years ago. the other thing, one last comment i live in buffalo, new york and i see in south buffalo there is a large military

storage center that is suddenly popped up just off the highway where there is all kind of military equipment being stored there for some reason. i can imagine why. i will take your comments off the air. >> host: colonel go ahead. >> guest: no you can't really predict and to say we will never do anything in the future in terms of the army when you talk about fighting in an urban area we thought in vietnam then that was a huge urban fight. we learned a lot from that and it was a lot going on there. to say we will never do it again was incorrect. as a nation we don't know what the future holds only can't predict it. to say we are not going to fight in a particular way our enemies will determine how went where we

may have to fight in the future. we can't exclude any possibilities. as an army we have to be prepared for those possibilities. i have been called on to do a lot of things i never thought i would have to do in the military and you always think about how could you have better prepared for that? that is what we are trying to achieve is to provide our soldiers with the best chances of not only surviving but thriving in combat. everything we do at this location is assigned to increase our soldiers -- so i have no idea what the future's going to hold. we spent a lot of time talking about what the threats could be innocent as you decide we will never fight in cities in an asymmetric warfare way our enemies will say they are not prepared for that in that is where we need to drop a man. we have to be prepared for broad spectrum of operations and that is what we are trying to do here. >> host: we have heard a lot

of calls about -- and the type of training you do. >> guest: no the media is much more open in terms of what's available on the internet and tv media. there are a lot of different opinions out there. i think you will see a larger scope of opinions and some people may gravitate to a certain opinion that makes their preconceived notion. that is why an interview is so important. we are opening up to not only the united states and the world, this is what we have got here. there's nothing to to hide. that's what we are trying to do is say here at the american soldiers. these are your soldiers. these are the soldiers that are chartered for protecting the united states of america. this is what they are doing and they are fantastic. as we highlight what they are doing and where they are

training we want to -- >> host: next up stephen from connecticut. go ahead. >> caller: that caller was kind of kooky. they would have to sign-up for tta. this type of warfare is in the united states. we have vladimir putin over their marching across crimea georgia chechnya. he wants estonia, he won slot they have. we have to get our friends from poland to come to our facility and train on how to how do we train the army. this caller, i would love to have the united states army in my town. build the base in connecticut.

thank you. >> guest: no thank you very much for your call and your confidence in our soldiers. that is something that we are trying to share and you bring up a really interesting point when you talk about the complex things going on in the world. what we try to do and asymmetric warfare training center here is not look so much at the who of what's going on but though what that's going on the world. when we look at the techniques being deployed we may see a different kind of warfare being waged in a particular scenario and maybe that's the kind of warfare where soldiers are in combat and not wearing uniform. maybe they are in a cyber component or electronic warfare component. we are able to look at that and look and say hey we saw this in this area. how do we develop a technique and procedure to operate in that kind of environment? again you brought up some great points to talk about how the

nature of warfare has changed and that is what we are teaching our soldiers to do. i relish the old days when i knew i would be called on to get into my tanker or armored personnel carrier and base the enemy to be able to kill him before he kills me but now the world has changed and we have this complex environment. we have to have our soldiers prepared to do numerous missions missions. i would hope that you would find confidence that there is something that's working on that in the u.s. army is looking at what's going on in the world today preparing our soldiers for the unknown. >> host: george in texas you are up next with our guests. good morning. >> caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. the first thing i want to do is think colonel petkosek for his service. there are three things that i've been hearing here and seeing that it have impressed me very much. the first is that citizens are

asking questions. the second is colonel petkosek first response to the questions is his loyalty to the constitution of the united states. the third thing is in this world today we cannot afford to ignore the fact that we may be forced to fight on our own soil and if that were to occur from what i'm seeing i'm quite certain that colonel petkosek and his men will be able to handle that situation. completely within the law and the laws of our country and with the -- what the constitution intended and i want to thank you for your time in service and thank you for the call. >> guest: no thank you i really do appreciate your calling comments. it's on firing when you get to see what our soldiers are doing and a chance to get to share

that with the american people is really a great opportunity. the country is large and soldiers are spread across different basins and we don't always get a chance to see what the soldiers are doing so anytime we have an opportunity to highlight for the american people, this is your army, this is your military and you can rest assured that we have the right people doing the right thing for our nation. its eyes a good thing so thank you. >> host: mike from hence in alabama, hi. >> caller: how are you doing? colonel i want to congratulate you on your facility. it's remarkable and obviously state-of-the-art. my son just went to the active army after three tours in iraq and one in afghanistan and i want to say i'm with you. only the death of seeing the end of world really can predict exactly what's going to happen

but i think what you are hearing are the voices of people who called the two-day is the national command authority under the constitution. my question to you is quite simple and direct. what do you do when faced with an unconstitutional order? >> guest: we have an application to support and defend the constitution of the united states and fortunately i not had to face that moral dilemma and say what choice do i make between an order -- and i raise my hand and said i would support and defend the constitution and that is what i'm charged to do. as you talked about that is what our soldiers sign up or and again i'm glad to hear you have a son that has served and you should be proud that he made the choice and raised his hand as i did to support and defend the constitution of the united

states. a lot of the things in the program today may be false perceptions about what our armies are here to do. that is why to take an opportunity to share with you and the rest of the american people this is what our army is here for. nothing has changed great this is the same army. united states army before there was united states of america was the institution we have in terms of our nation and we have been doing the same thing for 200 some odd years. whenever we are called the nature what the army does for the mic for the mic in people as in. it's only become stronger. >> host: florida, hi go ahead. >> caller: would like to ask the colonel if he would comment on operation j. helme 2015 and are produced a patient operation maple reserve which will be held in canada. i think it's ongoing now.

i was also wondering about -- >> guest: the first time unfamiliar with but i am familiar with the maple exercise held in canada. that is one of those great opportunities and i don't know the details of what they are trying to accomplish. i can't speak intelligently about that is one of those opportunities to work with our canadian partners. those things are important as an army. also what's going on in the world today different armies have different experiences. part of asymmetric warfare is we are looking for best practices working with the canadians and we say hey that's a great way to do something. why do we do that the united states army? that's something we gain from working with our partners and so again i can't speak intelligently about the nature of it that i know we are working with them to identify best

practices. >> host: colonel how do you know what you are doing here successful? >> guest: that's the difficult part, how many lives have you saved and getting ahead of the threat is the hardest part of it. so when we know it's successful and as i said we have soldiers and we asked them to do a lot of things. when we see those soldiers who may think hey i was at ap hill and we did adaptability training. that helped prepare me for my mission. that is how we measure success. we get feedback that says what you are doing is important. everybody wants to feel that what they are doing has value and importance particularly our soldiers in the u.s. army. they sacrifice a lot. their way from their family and they spend time -- and they want to know it makes a difference and makes a difference when you know you were helping soldiers on the battlefield to be better

prepared for the mission and ultimately their son or daughter wife or husband will go home safe because of the training you did at fort ap hill. >> host: colonel john petkosek is the commander of asymmetric warfare group to talk to us about the nature of their work. commander thank you for your time. we also want to thank video works by -- and i want to thank them them as well well to that set for "washington journal" today. the new program comes at 7:00 a.m. tomorrow morning. we will see then.

with iran over its a good program.

he and senator pat toomey are offering an amendment that places extra conditions on the nuclear deal. senator cruz's remark are 25 minutes. >> mr. president i arise today to sound a note of warning the nation of iran. consider the following facts. the supreme leader ayatollah khamenei has accused america of flying. we learned that the iranian regime has been actively arming and supporting anti-american who the rebels in yemen since 2009. the iranian regime held a parade of military equipment that featured chance of death to america and death to israel. the iranian regime charged unjustly retain american

citizens pose reporter with espionage and other crimes including quote propaganda against the establishment. the defense minister of iran declared that inspectors would be barred from all military sites even those known to have nuclear facilities. the iranian navy threatened a cargo ship at the straits of four ms. sailing under the flag of the united states. the iranian navy seized another cargo ship in the straits of hormuz sailing under the flag of our allies the marshall islands. the foreign minister of iran accused the united states and our allies have been the biggest danger to the international community. great written informed the u.n.

sanctions panel that iran has an active nuclear procurement network linked to two blacklisted firms. and the navy harassed the u.s. warship and military planes off the coast of yemen. mr. president these are not advanced from 1979 or 1983 or 1996. these are chronological order the aggressive anti-american action of the islamic republic of iran in the last month. every one of those occurred in the last month. and those are the ones we know know of anything covered in the media. this relentless drumbeat of hostility has gone on unabated for 36 years and it makes the

legislation before this body the iran nuclear agreement review at all the more credible. the bill's supporters insist it's the only way to ensure that congress has say over president obama's proposed iran deal. i agree that it is of paramount importance to give congress its proper role in international agreement of this magnitude and to make clear that president obama much -- must persuade congress and the american people to support his deal if he wants it to be binding which is why i been supportive of this process so far. him but i'm here to tell you as the legislation stands this legislation is unlikely to stop a bad iran deal. the problem is an all too familiar one here in washington d.c. which is that the iran nuclear agreement act contains a provision inserted at the

insistence of senate democrats which will allow congress to appear to vote against the deal while passively allowing it to go into effect. the bill allows congress to adopt a quote resolution of disapproval in president obama's iran deal. on the surface that sounds reasonable. from what we know know publicly of the know publicly at the doi certainly disapprove of it strongly but a resolution of disapproval under this legislation even if it passed a 60 vote threshold with grand claims of bipartisanship would not be the end of the matter. the president would certainly veto it and once he did it would require 67 votes from the senate and 290 votes from the house to override that veto. no wonder the white house has

lifted its objections to this legislation. all the president would have to do to force a bad iran deal on america is hold 34 senators of the democratic party or 145 members of congress. if he could do that a bad deal that undermines the national security of this country that endangers our friend and ally the nation of israel would go into effect and he could claim he was simply following the process that congress required. that's not an oversight. that is not an accident. they will provide some political cover. the senate democrats to say they have voted to provide strict scrutiny and congressional approval of the iran deal and yet as currently drafted it is a virtual certainty that no matter how terrible this deal is it

will go into effect in this legislation is unlike the to stop it. our first priority should be stopping a bad iran deal that jeopardizes the lives of millions of americans and millions of our allies. there is nothing more important this body can consider, not trade, not the budget. there's nothing more important. the first responsibility of this body is to protect the national security of this country, to protect the lives and safety of men, women and children across this country and the president's iran deal deeply jeopardizes the safety of americans. from what we know publicly and the details are still shrouded in considerable secrecy but from what we know publicly under this deal iran will be allowed to keep its enriched uranium.

it will be allowed to keep its centrifuges and reactors. it will continue his -- it's icbm program. the only purpose of which is to deliver a nuclear weapon to the united states of america. tehran will receive even more economic relief. reportedly including a 50 billion-dollar signing bonus. mr. president who in their right mind would give a 50 billion-dollar signing bonus to iran? it's worth noting that even under one of the strictest regimes of international sanctions iran was still able to marshal the resources to become one of the world's leading state sponsors of terrorism. we can only imagine what iran will do with this new source of funding which will certainly blow to hamas to hezbollah and the houthis as well as to their

proxies in latin america. mr. president i would note this deal goes into effect and tends and hundreds of billions of dollars flowing to iran including a $50 billion signing bonus and that money is given directly to radical islamic terrorists. the men, women and children who will be murdered by those terrorists will be going directly into the hands of this administration. if we allowed tens of hundreds of billions of dollars to flow into the hands of terrorists in places complicity for that terrorism on this administration paid there is no topic more serious this body could consider them preventing the murder of americans. the iranian behavior speaks for

itself. they are right now today i'm awfully imprisoning multiple american citizens. amir hekmati as well as -- under brutal conditions and they are withholding information on the whereabouts of robert levin. they have killed americans across the globe and they have plotted to kill us here at home. and they are explicitly threatening to wipe our allied nation of israel off the map. indeed in the midst of this negotiation the senior iranian general said the annihilation of israel is quote nonnegotiable. given that there is no way on earth we should he allowing billions of dollars to flow into a radical terrorist organization that has declared its object destroying israel which they call the little state and ultimately destroying america

which they call us the great state. they are telling us they want to kill us. not 10 years ago or 20 years ago. they are telling us this right now. if history teaches any principle with abundant clarity it is that if somebody tells you they want to kill you believe them. and they are not being subtle. these are the people the obama administration are putting on the path to having nuclear weaponry, the most fearsome weaponry known to man. make no mistake. that is what this deal would do unless congress steps in to stop it. not to have a show not to pretend to disapprove but to stop a bad deal that jeopardizes our safety.

we don't have to speculate. we need look no further than to the recent history of north korea. in october 1994 the clinton administration reached another agreed framework with north korea with that nation's nuclear program. that secretary of state madeleine albright. she insisted she had had a deal that would freeze the military component of the program into economic incentives and diplomatic outreach in place the the -- to join the internet community and protect their pursuit of nuclear weapons. at first all seemed to go well as north korea eagerly accepted the influx of hard currency as well as the promised of civilian nuclear reactors. secretary albright accompanied by them policy coordinators for north korea windy sherman even visited north korea in 2000 to

celebrate. despite all of the diplomatic initiatives, despite all of the champagne toasts the north koreans were cheating we now know they were cheating on the framework from the get go. where the george w. bush administration figured out economic sanctions were reimposed but they had no effect. neither did get more additional rounds of negotiations while they continued and continued to enrich. kim jong-il had gotten the resources he needed because the clinton administration relaxed sanctions and allowed billions of dollars to flow into his hands. and in 2006 north korea tested its first nuclear weapon. two more tests were to follow. in 2012 would kim jong then came to power than secretary of state

hillary clinton suggested that kim jong balloon might be a transformative leader and the state department assured the president that he would be more concerned with economic improvement than with his inherent -- inherited nuclear program in less than two years. this too was proven wrong. kim jong-un has demonstrated no interest in reforming this resolutely pursued his father's policies. just last week we learned from the chinese that north korea is well on its way to having some 40 nuclear weapons by 2016. is their ability to enrich uranium has significantly more sophisticated and have -- had been believed. in addition they are hard at work at their icbm program and may soon be able not only to threaten our regional allies but

also to strike the west coast of the united states. and with so many weapons in their arsenal it seems only logical that this rogue regime may in turn offer some of those weapons for sale to the highest bidder. all of this proves the fallacy of the clinton administration's repeated basic assumption that the north koreans would act in their best interest economically for which albright sherman meant reaching a diplomatic agreement to achieve diplomatic relief. unfortunately they were dead wrong and the result is the united states faces an escalating strategic threat in the pacific. we are now in grave danger of history repeating itself with iran. windy sherman the very same person a negotiated the failed north korea deal the obama

administration brought her back from the clinton administration to be our lead negotiator with iran. think about that. the person who led the failed north korea talks the talks that led to north korea getting nuclear weapons is president obama's lead negotiator sure my my -- will lead negotiator with iran and heard negotiations will certainly lead to the same outcome. indeed when secretary clinton brought wendy sherman back windy sherman pauly followed the exact same playbook for the negotiations that she had followed with respect to north korea. albert einstein famously said -- to iran has endorsed economic

relief and legitimization on the international stage. while america's demands had bundled from dismantling iran's nuclear program to curbing it around the edges temporarily. it may only be a matter of time before secretary john kerry no doubt accompanied by an undersecretary wendy sherman pays a courtesy call on tape ran to show the world how civilized the whole arrangement is and only a matter of time until the iranians cheat just like the north koreans their way to a bomb. and if the grim reality is that as bad as the situation is with north korea with iran is qualitatively worse. there are a nirmal aye dictators

but they do seem to be motivated to some extent is self-preservation. therein lies the fundamental difference with iran. the mullahs in tehran are radical zealots for whom the eradication of the little state in israel and the great state of america is a solemn religious duty rated and with radical religious zealots cost-benefit analysis it doesn't apply the same wide. with zealots who glorify death and suicide deterrence doesn't work the way it works elsewhere. death to america is not just a slogan. it is a religious promise. the risk that the ayatollah will

use the economic windfall of going to dollars courtesy of the usa to pursue nuclear weapons he would either use himself for give to terrorist surrogates to use isn't intolerably high. the consequences of a deal mr. president could very well be an iranian nuclear weapon used in the skies are tel aviv or new york or los angeles. the consequence of this deal could very well be millions of americans murdered. there is no minor serious topic we could be addressing. now president obama and his secretaries of state have had their chance to negotiate with iran and they have squandered on the same approach that was so spectacularly unsuccessful with north korea. they changed very little. they just replayed the same

failed plan. once again assuming they could reason with a rogue regime on the verge of sealing a deal that could result in the most significant threat to our nation and 21st century. the administration claims that tehran will not use their economic windfall to support terrorism and if they do this sanctions will fix the problem. hardly reassuring. especially as we know from the example of north korea that the opposite result is far more like he. having gotten what they wanted the mullahs will string out economic benefits for as long as they want and then when they are ready to test a nuclear bomb. the iranians know perfectly well what a very good deal it is for them and they are doing but they can to prevent congress from disrupting it. in march i was proud to join

with 46 of my colleagues in signing a letter written by senator tom cotton of arkansas that explained the constitutional role of the senate in approving a treaty in both houses of congress passing legislation into law for any deal to be binding on the united states of america. judging from their reaction to iran does not appreciate our free system of government. boring minister mohammed zarif responded quote the authors of the letter may not fully understand that in international law governments represent the entirety of their respective states are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs are required to fulfill the obligations they undertake with other states that may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations.

speaking last week to an audience at nyu he reiterated his opinion that is a matter of international law president obama would have to abide by the taste of whatever deal is struck and congress is powerless to stop it. he also said that he quote does not deal with congress. as a matter to united states law mr. zarif is wrong. it is true in the nation of iran when you have the supreme leader in the ayatollah with the ability to string you up or shoot you if you disagree the word that the supreme leader is binding but we have no supreme leader of the united states of america. we are bound by a constitution and rule of law to keep sovereignty in we the people and that mr. zarif wants sanctions agreements the only way to make that binding is to deal with congress pursuant to the constitution of the united states.

but, if we pass the iran nuclear agreement review act that stands right now we won't have to. it's time to tell the american people the truth. enough. this legislation is not a victory for congress. this legislation that vast postlude down slightly a terrible deal from being put into place. that is the very best outcome is a slight delay in the president putting into effect a terrible deal that jeopardizes american security. it's not a guarantee that president obama will have to submit his deal and honor the will of congress. in fact they provide to back door path for a minority congress one third of congress to ensure that the deal goes into effect over the bipartisan will of the majority. and even worse the present will be able to claim that he has

satisfied the terms of congress. that is hardly the message we want to send on iran's nuke program. in this issue is far too important to pass at that bill simply to send a message. by prioritizing bipartisan compromise over our national security we are endangering the safety and the lives of americans across this country. now i will note there is a silver lining. in 20 months mr. obama will no longer occupy the oval office and in january 2017 when a new president enters the white house he or she will have full authority to resend any international agreement with iran that has not been ratified at the senator passed into law by both houses of congress. mr. president and a man or woman

who is sent to be manager and chief of united states of america should be prepared to resend a bad deal with iran on day one. no president of the united states should jeopardize the lives of millions of americans are millions of our allies. congress could act right now to stop a bad deal deal. they we could come together and assert their constitutional role and we can does suit -- do so through simple mechanism. right now the current will provides that if congress doesn't override president obama's veto a terrible iran deal goes into effect. i have joined with senator pat toomey of pennsylvania and filing an amendment that simply reverses that says the president cannot lift sanctions on iran and must be deal is affirmatively approved by congress.

.. hat the congress of the united states is content to effectively neuter itself. mr. president, you and i are both members of the republican party. i feel quite confident that if a republican president were in office, we would not be content to give up the constitutional authority and responsibility that is given to this body to ratify treaties or pass laws. and yet i'm sorry to say on the democratic side of the aisle our friends are perfectly content to forfeit their constitutional authority to the president. if this deal is a good deal on

the substance -- it most assuredly is not -- but if it is the president should be able to get congressional approval. >> >> is they know full well they cannot defend a deal allows everyone to keep centrifuges and the uranium to keep the remaining the state sponsor of terrorism working to annihilate the israel nation. one simple change would turn this legislation into something meaningful. it would say the president is free to negotiate any deal that he likes to get

the affirmative agreement of congress. oh less the bad deal goes into effect to have a meaningful vote the requires the approval of congress. i urge my colleagues to adopt the cruz amendment that is a common sex -- common sense fix to read - - to have the resolution of approval instead to allow the iran deal to go into effect only if congress approves it. it is purely procedural so it is germane to this bill. but senate democrats have blocked a vote and have refused even vote on the amendment. all this amendment does is

insurer the burden is to the president had a very minimum is not a terrible threat to the national security of the united states of america. there should be something we come together as senators to have a responsibility to protect the american people to defend the constitution we should come together with one voice to say we will not allow a bad iran deal to ensure that it will acquire nuclear weapons to be used to murdered millions of our allies. this should be unanimous. so i ask unanimous consent

when the senate resumes consideration that i be allowed to offer my amendment 1152. >> reserve the right to object. of course, i think my friend from texas as we share the same goal to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear weapon states. there are three basic problems with my friend's amendment if it is to be adopted. one is to defeat the bill which is possible because it changes the fundamentals of week may decide that is the option if adopted it could affect our ability to negotiate with the reagan -- iran. and our negotiating partners

we don't have circumstances than the united states is blatant and third the buds negotiators in a tough position and therefore you will not negotiate the strongest possible deal. and for my friend that say it is simple to pass a bill this case now of the committee and i don't cnn in sight. at the same time it prevents the president from exercising his labor authority under the sanction regime while congress reuse it. so those taxes could be used by the minority for the floor of the senate and for all those reasons though well attended amendment from

a procedural point of view working to get the amendments up. i object. >> i know i was supposed to be speaking at 5:00. i know my good friend from ohio wants to be recognized for a short period of time. can he be recognized now then to be followed by my good friend from delaware then i'd be recognized at the end of his remarks for such time. >> the senator from texas. >> mr. president i will wrap

up momentarily from the time allocation suggestion. i would note the senator from maryland suggested the problem with congress is it is subject to delay and i would note i would be amenable with a friendly amendment that required expedited consideration of the iran deal. without the ability to filibuster but to receive that affirmative approval through both houses of congress. in with that time period as necessary but they take responsibility to deal with the good one it will not

receive the majority of congress. with that friendly amendment >> but there is the expedited to congress take the action if there is the violation of the agreement. [inaudible] sat back sanctions quickly so if there is a material breach we already had that in the bill to deal with any violation of any agreement.

the congress does not know the process they have modifications we may have the disapproval. that is our option. to learn the action in regards to submitted by the president of the united states. >> i would note the reason it is not taking up congress's aggregating or authority to approve this deal. once it is drafted we can look to know what will happen. what will come forward is the terrible deal.

of the resolution of disapproval will not get 67 votes. there is enough members of the president's own party tuesday antall matter how terrible the national security. then the bad deal goes into effect. it has the potential to result in the murder of millions of americans. to see anywhere to close of the gravity of this topic. it is disappointing to see democratic senators p before national security.

over the next 28 months yet i am encouraged in 20 months of america of will embark on a different path to defend our nation and our constitution and men and women across this country. i yield the floor

of this hearing is one hour 45 minutes. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> have a bit too thick everybody -- a light to thank everybody for being here tonight with the subcommittee hearing on the clean power plant. i would like all with this is a thank you for appearing today and also it my state who has been leading the national legal fight that has us devastating impact on west virginia.

but basket in february with the full committee hearing i asked the assistant administrator lighted epa did not hold a public hearing on the clean power plant in the state of west virginia. and despite the large role that kohl has in electricity generation with the federal legislatures that that people were comfortable. that is a quotation. as attorney general points out to have the devastating impact on our state and other coal producing states with the reliability of the grid. rigo from five decades of experience the clean air act

and the spirit of federalism and it works with parker's we have improved their quality protected the economy and the electricity grid at the same time. but it does none of this but instead it dictates to the states and micro manages the policy decisions to a degree that is unprecedented even baited by the agency. and many states whose attorneys general will be here today has grave concerns about the legality of the rules for their citizens. states have expressed concern about the feasibility with electricity cost and liability.

but to make decisions about electricity generation to provide affordable for consumers and businesses for those at best serve their citizen but each state's electricity plan has to meet the criteria to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and other epa regulations already is with the rise -- liability for the other hearings. but the lasting job creators need is another expensive regulation to drive up the energy crisis and to see the electric bills go up. but to have the proper balance of state and authority to have affordable electricity i look forward to working to advance this

bill and i would like to say throughout the state of western union we have such uncertainty and disappointment and we don't feel that the calculation of the economic impact has then fully explored or taking into consideration with that i will yield to the ranking member. >> thank you for holding the hearing today and also for your support. today's hearing as a discussion of the legal implications ended west virginia one of the founders

one was my great great grandfather and as of the native it remains important in now to represent the lowest rate in the nation and we have a unique perspective. for all cities not just some states. for those to be impacted by climate change the epa clean power plant with the sole source of carbon pollution ministates have already taken action and we need all states to do their fair share with climate change. in order for these to be affected the epa must ensure that they are capable of

complying with standards. with c ability to kraft a comprehensive state for each day. states can create their own plan to meet their targets in meaningful ways by increasing renewable energy and increasing the efficiency of the electric grid. unfortunately since the epa proposed the clean car plant interacting with u.s. constitution i believe these claims are without basis. is in 2006 ted states actually sued the epa to force it to regulate carbon pollution since then it has ruled three times in support of the legal authority to

control carbon pollution under existing law. and confirmed in massachusetts that is passed by congress it gave the epa the ability to regulate carbon pollution. has the attempts to challenge the legality into implementation of the plan. so has the potential to be stuck for several years. the more severe the effects of climate change will become. made while public health will be endangered by more frequent storms.

personally i'm committed to make sure congress does all it can do to support the implementation of the clean power plant. i will close with one thought. one-family all over this state i remember going to a the gospel church shady spring as. had a very early age and was taught "the golden rule". to treat other people the way we would like to be treated. we want to make sure we treat west virginia fairly and delaware that the states that is the the sea level rise at the highest point in

delaware is a bridge. notch a mountain. and we are concerned about along with other states. so with that in mind let's have a good hearing. >> ever like to tell the audience and witnesses we're scheduled to have a vote around 1038 so my plan is to get to the opening statements then adjourned quickly to let us go vote by reserve the of a right to change my mind. that might be a better way to do it but just to put you on the lurch to recognize the chairman of the full committee from oklahoma to make comments. >> is just my wife that made that statement. [laughter] >> i appreciate it senator

and we have some people here today that our concerned and they say if we are reliant on fossil fuels for 50 percent of the power and they take that away pudgy run the machine called america? cap-n-trade started in 2002 when they said the world is coming to an end. now they tried to pass that legislatively 2002 through the current time if they're unable to do that. so we look at the federal government and the obama administration for what they couldn't do for legislation. then as the administrator of the epa under obama i ask if

we are to pass either through regulation or legislation does this have the effect of reducing co2 remissions worldwide? >> so even if you are a believer it would not work. i am not a lawyer but i was of several radio shows. and i learned a lot from the president's own law professor recently testified before the house that the epa was attempting be unconstitutional trifecta that is serving the prerogatives of the states and congress also wants this is brought obama as harvard law professor. >> thank you. we will go left to right the

honorable morrissey the attorney general for the state of west rigid as. >> for all of those distinguished members i very much appreciate the opportunity to be here today to testify for the clean power plant. i do feel good because west virginia seems to have support from the chair in the ranking members side. you're always welcome to come back percolate here to talk about the legal problems in the obama administration that seeks to require states from existing coal-fired power plants the staggering 30 percent make no mistake this have a devastating impact on my state and citizens from

across the country who feel that negative impact of lost jobs if the and the potential lack of liability with the power grid is one of those states in the country may yet we're the second largest producer of coal will. this proposal will have greater economic dislocation at a time when we could least supportive. has said chief legal officer it is my a duty to fight against this. it has already deleaded they a bipartisan commission and if it elects to finalize this rule west virginia will challenge it and we expect a coalition of states we're working with will grow. today and would like to talk about the proposal.

. . this is where the epa runs in the some trouble. as we know they already finalized a major role affecting coal-fired power plants under section 112. the epa legal argument for

avoiding this exposure is not credible and defies all traditional roles of administrative law and statutory construction. let me explain. when congress enacted the present version of the section 112 exclusion it made a mistake. accidentally included to provisions in the statute of art to amendments to the same exact text. one was a substantive amendment to replace the cross-reference and change the exclusion to its present form. the 2nd was a conforming amendment that was made 170 days later. but once you actually apply the substantive amendment to the text it made the conforming change wholly unnecessary command that is why the technical error was never included in the us code.

now, what happens there is actually consistent with the way congress is always operated, operated, to the extent that there are clerical errors in the text when congress goes back through the revisers to decide what goes in the code they analyze that and apply traditional rules of statutory construction. in fact, we have never seen a situation before where a federal agency has literally tried to push such a sweeping proposal on the basis of a typo. it is unprecedented. perhaps the most most radical feature of section 111 d is its sheer breadth rather than follow the traditional pathway of opposing an emission role in a particular source category to make that source category more environmentally friendly the section 111 d rule requires states to replace coal fire energy with other sources of energy demand for energy. that means that the section 111 d rule seeks not only to regulate powerplant emissions but is amended for

states to fundamentally reorder there electricity sectors and pick winners and losers between the sectors. this will would regulate from power to plug. now, a well-respected attorney recently educated before the house energy commerce committee, the epa's claim here is an analogous to the agency asserting that it's authority to regulate automobile emissions provides it with the power to order citizens to take a bus to work or by electric cars on the theory that the measures would reduce car emissions. section 111 d simply does not grant epa says broad, sweeping power. thank you very much. >> i have considered that the vote has been called. we are going to go vote and we will stand in recess. we should be here shortly.

thank you for your patients. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> so, that was pretty quick, i think. we will resume the hearing, and i would like to welcome the honorable scott pruitt, attorney general from the state of oklahoma.

>> good morning, chairwoman, ranking member, chairman members of the subcommittee. it is a joy to be with you good to be with my dear colleague and friend. i appreciate the invitation to discuss the legal ramifications of the epa proposed plan powerplant. this is an issue of major importance to states across the country like oklahoma and quite simply the epa does not possess the authority under the clean air act to do what it is seeking to accomplish in the so-called clean powerplant. the epa treats states like a vessel the federal we will. the epa believes the epa believes states exist and implement the policies the administration sees fit regardless of whether laws like the clean air act. such action. in their wisdom congress gave states a primary role the statement of policy of

the clean air act that air pollution control at its source is the primary responsibility of states and local governments. governments. that statements respect the constitutional limits on federal regulation of air quality and the reality that states are best suited to develop and implement such power. states are able to engage in a cognitive analysis to strike the necessary balance between protecting and preserving the environment boston creating a regulatory framework that is unstable job growth. partnering with the federal government with the federal government in regulating such matters. therefore the clean air act hinges on cooperative roles for regulation of providing the federal backstop if the station fell act. the epa respect the role of the states. in the epa can develop when the epa exceeds that constrains the relationship is down at a balance and the rule of law and state sovereignty is affected adversely.

the epa claims the proposal gives states the flexibility to develop their own plan to make the meet the national goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. reality is nothing more than an attempt to expand federal agency power at the expense of state energy power generation. the plan requires each state to submit a plan to cut carbon dioxide emissions by a nationwide average by 30% by the year 2030. in oklahoma 40.5% of our energy production comes from coal-fired generation and 38% from natural gas. oklahoma notably ranks 4th in the country in generating electricity through end. this begs the country in generating electricity through end. this begs the question, how does the epa expect states like oklahoma to meet the goals of the clean powerplant? there are only so many ways oklahoma can achieve a 30 percent reduction demanded. the plan therefore must be viewed as an attempt to for states in the shuddering coal generation and eventually other sources of fossil fuel generating electricity. additionally the proposed rule that would reduce the

amount of generation required. however, states are limited. the proposals an attempt to for states to regulate energy consumption and generation throughout the jurisdiction in the guise of reducing emissions from fossil fuel fired plants violating section 111 d plaintext requirement, the performance standards must be limited to measures that apply an existing power plants themselves inside the fence. the epa approach converts the obscure little used section 111 d into a general enabling act giving the epa power over the entire group generation the light switch. by going beyond source level inside the fence line measures the epa proposal would expand 111 d and specifically underline statutory term, term, best

system of mission reduction into a new regime of regulation, one that regulates an emission by sources, the state's entire research and energy grid. to meet the objectives states will be forced to rework their energy generation market to account for the loss of coal-fired generation's. states would also be forced to alter existing regulatory framework which would threaten energy affordability. a substantial concern at the epa before the clean powerplant is your finalized would issue a uniform federal implementation plan that would be forced upon those states that do not acquiesce to the unlawful clean powerplant. such a move would be the proverbial gun to the head demanding the states to act as they see fit. mme. chairwoman, i can say with great confidence of the epa does move forward with the uniform to fill be

challenged in court by oklahoma and other like-minded states. i states. i am not want to believe the epa has no role. has played an historic role. however, with this rule the agency is now being used to pick winners and uses in the energy market by elevating renewable power at the expense of fossil fuel generation. no state should comply with the clean powerplant if it means surrendering decision-making authority, power that has not been granted. states should be left to make decisions the best meet the generations needs. states like oklahoma care about these issues. we have developed a robust regulatory regime that has successfully struck a balance between a balance between maintaining a preserving air and water quality also considering the economic impact. opposed because it is outside the authority granted by law. respected and preserved.

i appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today and discussed these important matters. >> thank you. a partner and formerly the general counsel at the us epa. welcome. >> thank you. thank you thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee once again. epa has yet to finalize the existing performance standard. both impassioned support and the human opposition. i have added to that makes today with some testimony that i shared with you. what i thought would do is digest

those arguments into what i think will be the two overarching issues that the court will consider what it ultimately reviews the final if we look at how the courts have responded to climate change issues since 2,007 we have had a lot of direction from the supreme court, the dc circuit, the ninth circuit. the courts have told us they take climate change extremely seriously. the courts have expressed that they view climate change as the paramount policy concern and have been highly deferential but only to epa but to the states. so i agree with that proposition. the courts have been recognized and they won't look at this in a political vacuum. having said that the other countervailing consideration would be the unprecedented nature of what epa is trying to do with the existing authority. what i'm talking

about specifically, the one that i think will get the most attention is something you probably heard about several times by now the approach to regulate sources beyond the fence line basically working like this. my coal-fired power plan. they some of the technology that could be achieved. but now epa saying in order to address climate change that will limit us. we have to look beyond the fence line. renewable energy, nuclear energy, the energy efficiency. that will enable us for the 1st time to achieve greater reductions in greenhouse gases than what we can get. back to my 1st point. the court may think that is a noble goal but at the same time it will be thinking about the legal precedent of this approach.

it has three presidential ramifications. the 1st is the practical ramifications as the two generals are spoken, the enormous expansion of authority to make epa not only a regulator of the environment but the most significant regulator of energy at the national level. in order to get those greenhouse reductions it has to include nuclear facilities energy efficiency and countless buildings. the 2nd ramification is the legal one, and the courts will be concerned about the legal precedent. this is a this is a departure from the clean air act historic approach focusing on sources on the case law that has been consistent in epa's past application. never before has the epa gone beyond the source. if the concern will be the

presidential nature. if the firm with this approach here is a source as a source to regulate greenhouse gases from other centers there will be almost no limit to how i can look them in individual source to bring in other sources and all other sources not currently subject like a nuclear facility like this building an energy efficiency and bring them into the regulatory regime. while i set the supreme court has endorsed the climate change we will is an * there in less than a year ago they did say they are personally reversing that epa cannot look to the clean air act to engage in sector wide economic regulation. that came out for days after this rule that the supreme court so we will not allow epa to use the clean air act to regulate lots of small sources and engage in sector wide regulation. it is unfathomable how the

justices that were concerned wanted to be concerned with this regulation. the last thing i want to to mention briefly is the harm that we will see in the interim. takes about four years for the courts to review cases like this. again, the generals of spoken to some of the harms. harms. i want to.out any single rule, someone will allege harm. this is fundamentally distinctive because of the way atty. gen. pruett and morrissey have talked about the ways they would have to fundamentally restructure and reorganize there entire system and developing laws, acting laws that promote ringgold portfolio standards, energy efficiency programs and so on. fundamentally distinct. thank you for this opportunity. >> thank you very much. our next witness is a member of a member of the maryland public service commission and also the cochair of the regional greenhouse gas

initiative. welcome. [inaudible] >> microphone. bullet toward you. yes. that's good. >> is this okay? thank you for inviting me today. since the issuance of the clean powerplant opponents and proponents alike have been engaged in many discussions about the next step. reiterating a sentiment expressed by one of my dear fellow panelists one of the most significant questions for states right now is how to comply. i respectfully submit i respectfully submit to you from the perspective of the state that is already putting boots on the ground, not only can states comply but we can do so in a a way that generates economic benefit and supports grid reliability. i ask in return can we afford not to comply?

rather than looking at this in the context of a federal limitation plan anchors a legal experts and legislators to view this situation from a state regulator perspective. as noted severe whether is the leading cause of power disruption costing the us economy from 18 billion the 33 billion a year. as a utility regulator i have the statutory obligation to ensure reliable and affordable electricity. i need more tools my disposal them what is available to me from within the fence final powerplant. modernizing the electric grid is critical and requires multistate collaboration to implement cost-effective infrastructure improvement. the proposed plan as an impetus for states to assess the grid and to face the reality of an already shifting fuel makes adding carbon pollution reduction as a metric. states have continued for seven years on

unsuccessfully implementing the nation's 1st fully operational carbon market. the program initiated by a bipartisan group of governors' and developed collaboratively's emissions by 1st determining a regional budget of carbon dioxide allowances and then distributing a a majority of those allowances to the regional options of marketplaces and finally capturing a value for reinvestment and a strategic energy programs. although we have collaborated for the better part of a decade the region remains surprisingly diverse three different separate electricity regions, different political and economic landscapes and a similar generation profiles. maryland is 44 percent call. a little bit surprising for those who look into the region and think of us as the northeastern states, but we have learned to balance that and diversify our fuel makes. we have gone from 2,005 to 2013.

it is possible to reduce our carbon dioxide emission. the carbon the carbon intensity's has decreased at twice the rate of the rest of the country. you will find wants us to develop one statistic attesting to the economic and environmental benefits. the benefits informed our perspective as we voiced support for the framework of the clean powerplant and recommended revisions to ensure early action is recognized and estate targets are verifiable transparent, equitable, and enforceable. regional math -based programs are advantageous in part because they closely align with the nature of the grid and allow for transparent, verifiable tracking and compliance systems. recent analysis calculated higher compliance cost for

states to go alone underscoring the cost-effectiveness original plans. states that work together and implement a regional emission budget across a larger geographic boundary's so to add some perspective on the timing really quick one the power sector has already responded effectively to environmental regulations. in fact, measures supported have advanced reliability goals. states have 15 years. we have reduced our carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by 40 percent while our region's economy grew by 8 percent. finally, we have accumulated some pretty good lessons as a participant and reggie that we hope will be instructed to other states.

number one, we formed and try and enter agency relationships through cooperative efforts which allows us to do a lot more for a lot less. the regional mechanism has stimulated quite some good stakeholder engagement as many of the compliance entity span multiple jurisdictions and appreciate the regional consistency. the 3rd is the 3rd is that consistency does not mean that we have to have identical programs. each state has its own programs based on its own policy. the most important lesson is that participation in a math-based regional compliance effort will likely provide our states the most part of building moving forward's. the only enforceable mechanism and it is enforced by our individual state regulators. so states so states retain jurisdiction over their individual energy efficiency and we know where the programs not subject to federal limitation command we can continue to offer these initiatives to mitigate the cost for compliance. thank you. we look forward to working with you and answering

questions. >> our final witness lisa heiser going. welcome. >> thank you. thank you for inviting me to appear before you today to discuss the legal obligations of the epa carbon dioxide will. many dramatic legal arguments have been raised against epa proposal. proponents have claimed that the proposal is unconstitutional under any one of a number of novel theories. they also argue that the whole postal's or significant aspects of it are unlawful. we have heard several such arguments already this morning. morning. in my view the constitutional and statutory arguments that have been raised collapse upon close inspection. for example,. for example, constitutional

principles of federalism are violated by the epa proposal. states have a choice to divide their own plans to meet the state specific target that the epa will set or they may let epa devise a plan for them. this is the very same choice. states choice. states have had it for 45 years under the air quality standard program of the clean air act. it is not an unconstitutional choice. nor does nor does the epa proposal violate the doctrine prevent -- for bidding. epa is interpreting statutory provisions of less than ideal clarity using his best judgment to offer an interpretation that gives some poor to its provisions enacted by congress. the proponents argue that if epa interprets the statue the right way it raises no nondelegation issue but they say if they interpret the statute the wrong way this violates the nondelegation doctrine.

in 2001 in the case whitman versus american trucking association justice justice scalia writing for a unanimous supreme court rejected this exact. , the theory that an agency can cure or create a nondelegation problem by adopting a particular interpretation of the statute. if the clean air act presents epa with an unconstitutional choice between apparently conflicting provisions which it is not the remedy would be to strike this provisions down, not to require adoption of interpretation that opponents of the rule prefer. epa's proposal also does not violate the clean air act. much has been made of the two different 1990 amendments to section 111 d 111 d both passed by congress and signed into law epa has long offered an interpretation of section 111 d that aims to take

something from each of these amendments. under the epa construction epa may not regulate the same hazardous air pollutants from the same sources under both that section and section 112. this interpretation this interpretation makes perfect sense and respects the larger structure of the clean air act which pervasively leads -- leaves room for regulation in the event new threats from air pollution, before. epa's proposed consideration of a wide range of emissions reduction measures and setting state targets including renewable portfolio standards and demand-side energy efficiency is consistent with the broad authority given to it by section 111 d in contrast to what we are this morning already this kind of approach is not unprecedented's. epa has long allowed compliance.

here it is worth thinking about the claim. in essence there is too much flexibility afforded. it is worth noting that the office of management and budget of the white house in 2,003 noted that the clean air act and the largest quantified health effects of any health benefit of any federal regulatory program. the latest epa study of costs and benefits to clean air act found in a a central estimate that the clean air produces $30 worth for every $1 of cost. under a high estimate of benefits it is 90 to one. this does not happen by accident. this kind of program, statutory implementation happens as a result of firm but sensible interpretation of broad statutory provisions.

it it is mystifying to me that opponents of the clean powerplant for criticizing the epa for exhibiting the same good sense of flexibility that has served the clean air act and this country so well for 45 years >> thank you. appreciate everyone's testimony, and i will begin with questions. attorney general, let me ask you a question. we obviously have a difference of opinion here. the supreme court recently said it is skeptical what an agency claims to discover an unheralded power to regulate a significant portion of the american economy. i guess my question is, how long has won 11 d 11 d existed command has it ever been used outside the fence line? >> mr. chairman, this actually is an unprecedented effort on the part of the epa to regulate.

we have never seen a proposal quite like this in terms of scope and willingness to regulate outside the fence but also the legal theory being advanced your bonus of ministration. if you go if you go back to 1970 and then you go up all the way to modern-day you are looking at nothing that has ever occurred quite like this. there has been some select effort to rely on 111 d in very limited circumstances, but nothing ever approaching this magnitude. the other critical.is that from 1990 no federal agency no one has ever questioned that if you were to regulate under 112 at the literal text would ultimately preclude the state-by-state emission targets being set under 111 d.

we think that this is really an unprecedented approach. we would also add what the administration is trying to do here is rely on a typo to make informing error, if you will, in order to breathe life and one of the most sweeping regulations our country's history. if you look to advance something that has this great and impact on the american economy at a a minimum there should be clear authority and not a reliance on this title. >> you mentioned in your statement that epa had never gone that far in terms of this fence line issue. >> is direct. there have been number of occasions where this is been a bubble concept's. you bring in other sources of the global. there are two cases that address it. not even in section 111 d context. a little bit we have seen has been negative and pessimistic.

in terms of your question the epa has engaged in five section 111 d role makings since 1990. has always stayed strictly within the frontline. so there is a lack of precedent. a consistent source of case law that would suggest that everything has to be within the france. >> thank you. the proposed rule is clearly on shaky ground. four years before we would actually maybe get a firm legal interpretation of the being finalized. what happens as states start implementing the final rule only to have the core strike to roll down. people start signing contracts and breaking ground. >> what is often discussed is the short timeline that the epa will likely propose it is our understanding that

it will be a one-year compliance for states to submit an implementation plan. that is a very ambitious timeline. as such what is happening across the country is respective departments of carmel quality of the state level feel as though they are being pressured and intimidated to comply with the rule that perhaps is not consistent with the statutory construction. i am concerned about the timeline and would add to rogers commented earlier we have to keep in mind one of my fellow panelists as a public utility corporation that regulates this at the state level. the regulation of energy generation is a police power of the state historically recognized as such record cases. for there to be any intervention into the police power there is a rule of statutory construction the congress speak clearly and unambiguously to pervade the

police power recognized by law. by virtue of the discussion today there is disagreement about whether the statute fully provide that type of authority. >> another quick question. your governor said governor said as she will not be doing a state implementation plan. >> an executive order recently issued by the governor indicating that dd q is not empowered to submit an invalid plan. >> i believe in west virginia mr. attorney general at the state legislature weighed in on this. >> just recently a couple months ago the state legislature change the law for the state of west virginia to submit a state implementation plan the legislature would have to ratify it. that that is different from previous law which would leave all for each of the governor. >> thank you. >> this bears repeating.

try to find the multi- pollutant legislation. sulfur dioxide, mercury, co2 as part of that process meeting with a bunch of utility ceos all over the country. and at the end of the conversation the utilities for subways down south said to me these words, look, here is what you need to do. tell us what the rules will be given us flexibility and a reasonable amount of time and get out of the way. as we said. tell us what the rules will

be, give us some flexibility, reasonable amount of time and get away. i would just say, if i could come and visit doctor are missed? think about that conversation and what the fellow said to me that they. >> it is exactly setting out what states are to do gives them targets to me, gives them the flexibility to choose the way that they want to meet those targets. in this respect it is strange and surprising to me that the states are already saying that they would prefer to have the federal government that their plans, given that kind of flexibility to set there on plans and then given the plan to have the time to do it. notably long looking after 2030 for file compliance. i think your story fits this

role perfectly. >> i think you are saying that there has been a fairly heavy reliance on coal generation. he reduced emissions by roughly 40 percent. my last job as governor, i love the idea of having flexibility. i understand there are at least four options. and be on the fence line is an option. as i recall working on multiple it legislation we

were anxious to see what kind of options they were outside the fence line. how can we help? how can we help with respect to encouraging folks to a plan. the idea of going out on the fence line seems to me like my dad would say that seems like common sense's. talk to us about flexibility more flexibility. actually the regional solutions how does it help maryland? they were into original, can we get some help? >> absolutely and thank you for the question. just a 2nd and say epa has made unprecedented average to the utility regulators of

the nation through the national association of regulatory utility commission even if the commissioners don't agree on everything. these are the things we agreed on. we have chosen to use all four of these building blocks and reducing carbon emissions from already region. but it is not necessarily necessary to do all four of those. and you're not limited. the epa is clearly set out a plan and setting up the goal separately what the compliant plans will be a you may use it outside the fence line solutions

including energy efficiency and demand responses that have helped us with reliability including changing fuel sources from 56 percent call to a much wider mix of fuel availability for our generation which actually helps with reliability. we have been able to meet multiple goals for states that include reliability, affordability, and reducing carbon far-reaching outside the fence. that said we only regulate state-by-state in our contract. we're not going in and regulating the energy efficiency program of each state. i actually helped i actually helped to make those decisions. >> we have a simultaneous meeting going on. i will be back.

>> senator and off. >> thank you, madam chair. i listened to the people here and get different ideas it's a rare thing. i am not an attorney. it seems to me that the practical application of the proposal would require the states to pass do laws or revise existing regulatory systems. what is wrong with this picture? should it be the role of an administrative agency to be forcing states to take this kind of action? and then secondly is this consistent with the clean air act? >> thank you, mr. chairman. as discussed, there is a question that keeps coming up in my mind.

if this is such a flexible arrangement that is offered to states, if this is really within the bounds of cooperative federalism why is it that the epa presently is in the process of developing a uniform federal implementation plan that they will put on the shelf to then say to the states unless you act a particular way, consistent with the rule this is what you are going to get. that does not sound like cooperation were partnership making states active particular way consistent with the comment that i offered in my opening statement. this epa looks a state implementation plans and says you can introduce and adopted state plan so long as it embodies federal will, so long as it embodies that which we want to happen on a state-by-state basis. and if states disagree that is when these federal implementation plans are forced upon the state. i do not think there is much discretion to the state of oklahoma as i indicated in

my comment. we are already we are already in the top four states in the country and generating electricity through renewables and went. yet this epa is expecting the state of oklahoma to reduce their co2 footprint by over 30 percent. the question is how but for shattering coal generation in the state of oklahoma. that is a concern practically and legally. >> but look here. you look at the 10th amendment which refers to reserving power to the states. do you think this is consistent with the 10th amendment? >> this case -- and i would add to the comments earlier, i don't think it is terribly novel to have a dispute or case about statutory destruction. i indicate that it is a traditional police power to regulate power generation and for the federal government to intervene or to invade that it has to be

clear and unambiguous. it is demonstrative of that is not the case. i think it is less about the 10th amendment and less about states rights under the 10th amendment and more about statutory construction and whether the epa possesses the authority that you gave it to regulate in this area. >> do you have any comments? >> i would agree with that. if i can mention of fema flexibility that is come up during our discussion i don't think there is anyone who would dispute flexibility is a good thing. if i think there is a little bit of an apples to oranges situation, i apologize. this is my coal-fired power plan. if you stay inside the fence line you are currently emitting 2100 times a co2. we will reduce you to 2,000 tons. what epa saying is we look at nuclear and renewable energy efficiency. because we're looking outside the fence line will bring you down for 1200 pounds. epa has to set the standard

inside the fence line that there is flexibility in how you meet that standard. but you can't look outside the fence and setting the standard. i don't dispute the flexibility is a good thing. the distinction is the distinction is the flexibility does not come in setting the standard on the compliant side. >> that is a good comment. i will probably have another round of questions that i might get to. i no people in west virginia and i no what is happening there right now. even though this rule is not gone into effect what has happened to some of your coal plants utilities? >> it is clear and west virginia that the arm is already occurring. in fact, as we were preparing for a lawsuit that we filed last year against

the epa one of the principal arguments that we made is that unlike many of the other traditional rules that are subject to notice and comment, this proposed rule is actually causing real tangible harm in the states and also affecting power plan operations currently. if you if you go and look at litigation we have at least a declarations from very experienced environment regulators to talk about the cost of trying to comply with this rule. the rule. the other.i would raise is that the time frames associated with this proposal are hyper aggressive. a proposed rule was issued june of 2014, a final rule scheduled to be issued sometime this summer and then while the regulators are suggesting that they made have many years in order to try to even come up with plant, they have been given one year. that is a very real problem. very real problem. there are real costs being expended by the states and also i believe this administration is not

particularly interested in whether the rule is finalized so long as the marketplace moves away from the. of coal-fired power plants have to be retired much quicker than baseline than they will accomplish there goal even if this regulation never is appalling court. >> thank you, and i do want to follow up on us. >> thank you, madam chair. i ask the two articles be included in the record. they provide a clear and thorough explanation. at a big moment. pope francis is about to issue an audible on climate change. the college of cardinals named a jesuit who taught chemistry is pope. pope francis actually believes science is the answer to our prayers. we have to we have to look at the smartest ways we can

deal with this to reduce the danger a growing greenhouse gases will pose. is important for us to find ways to accomplish that goal so back in 1990 we worked on the clean air act. i was on the community to address and put that law on the books. i added an energy efficiency section to the clean air act to give more flexibility to the administrator. josh pushes epa administrator. they were raised with utilities complying by undertaking activities beyond what was occurring at the power plants. i assure you that my intent than that of my congressional colleagues was to encourage utilities to look at the energy system mental to find ways of reducing sulfur pollution. one objection that has been raised is that utilities

might have to go beyond the fence of their power plans to achieve there emission target. in addition to the acid rain program are there other examples of using energy efficiency, renewables, or other beyond the fence activities? >> yes. very early on, something like 35 years ago epa issued a rule that included washing of call before it was burned as a compliance mechanism. something that was not within the source, not the typical end of the pipe kind of measure. and regulating interstate pollution or interstate conventional air pollutant under the clean air act epa has for many years include renewables and energy efficiency. if you may expand this.

i think it illustrates what your talking about. if you look at the program section 202 to regulate mobile sources. you might as the classic end of the pipe measure. and yet if you look at the epa most recent rule on greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources they epa has in the terms used today gone beyond. they included consideration of the footprints of the vehicle and the air-conditioned the refrigerants used. and if you look not just at the pollution regulation and women talking about, the stationary sources the on the clean air act it does not become standard.

>> i agree with you and i i was the intent. to give more flexibility use a different model. that is what this proposed rule will do say to each state move in a way that accomplishes the goal. so let me ask you this question, the constitutionality has been challenged before. i like to nothing opinion. the supreme court ruled that epa has the authority to set standards for carbon pollution under section 111 d. american electric power and during the oral argument the council on behalf of aep said to the court we believe the epa can consider as it is undertaking to do regulating existing non- modified sources is they're

really any constitutional question about the epa approach or legal authority to regulate carbon pollution? >> i don't think so. the constitutional issues of been a distraction. i think i think they have been used to make people worry that maybe there is a real constitutional issue. the constitutional arguments are flimsy. those statutory authority under the clean air act is clear. >> thank you. you. thank you very much. attorney general pruett, good to see you. a fossil fuel energy producing state, state, the state of west virginia like the state of wyoming is a call state. all of all of our states are particularly hit by this little proposed epa rules aimed squarely at the fossil fuel industry and the folks

who work in that industry. i would like to highlight a letter from the governor of my home state of wyoming to epa administrator gina mccarthy on april 28 of this year. i asked that the governor's record be entered into the record. >> thank you. the governor highlights a recent study by the center for energy economics and public policy at the university of wyoming entitled the impact of the coal economy on wyoming published in february of this year. i would ask also that the study be entered into the record. >> without objection. >> thank you. the governor. the governor states about the study that the study determined the single largest threat is the epa clean power rule. in fact, the study says that the 111 d planet regulation is the potential to drastically decrease wyoming coal production. production of coal output under the most favorable production circumstances decreased by 32 percent of the 2012 production by the year .25.

even in the best case impact modeling of the 111 the 111 the scenario suggests a loss of over 7,000 jobs across the state relative to the employment in 2012. overall proposed carbon regulations result in a predicted a predicted decline in the states combined coal and natural gas revenues between 36 percent and 46 percent by 2030. our state is funding that this rule will cost thousands of good paying jobs, drastically/state revenue that pays for college scholarships, schools, medical emergencies environmental protection programs, water quality services, veterans services. seniors, fish and wildlife don't deserve this dramatic cut in revenue by the epa. i find this recklessly irresponsible where the costs are so clear and devastating and the benefits are theoretical or unknown.

my question to the two of you, are the statistics and findings similar to what you are seeing in your concern in your states? how will it essential services, state services for children and seniors as well as the environment be impacted. >> i think you raise a number of very important issues. we have obviously we have obviously received a great deal of feedback coal operators from power plants coal miners in the state of west virginia but the devastating impact of these rules. there are a couple other applications as well. west virginia as its tax base relies heavily on coal revenues. if you were to look at a chart and examine some of the revenues that come into each of the counties from 2,011 until now you will start to see a rapid decline. just recently we have seen news publications about the number of people

that were laid off in the counties because of the coal severance tax revenue declining. the regulations here have far-reaching applications well beyond collaborators. the collaborators. the fact is for every job that you have related to call directly there are probably seven jobs that tie indirectly. a fundamental impact on our economy. that is one of the many reasons why our office has been focused so much on this because it would be an absolute travesty to finalize a a rule that ultimately has a real likelihood of being struck down in courts. >> the regulations have a direct impact on the people and the quality of life that people of your state have. >> without a doubt. there is always a wide variety of reasons that give rise to a particular decision by the powerplant operator. the regulatory burden is always very high analyst. >> and if i could add though we do not have a

robust coal economy we do actually have called in the state of oklahoma. i think what i think what is lost in the debate at times is the impact on consumers. those that will be consume electricity in the future between: natural gas, 78 percent of our electricity is generated. as i indicated, 15% of our electricity is generated through wind. the choices available to the state of oklahoma to comply with this to this mandate, reducing co2 it puts us in the position of having to make decisions about the shattering of coal generation. there is something called the regional haze. that one rule alone between psl and og any has seen 15

to 15 to 20 percent increases in the generation of electricity with just one rule. when we when we combine all these others will be obviously substantially more than the future. >> these regulations will directly hurt the people of oklahoma. >> some of the folks that can least afford it. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. an interesting hearing. the questioners am a republican side of the attorney general were present are all from states that have the characteristic that attorney general pruett just described, i.e. they have a robust coal economy. clearly we have a practical problem in that call, the burning of coal for electric generation creates some very very dangerous consequences. but they but they are not fairly distributed. so where there is a robust

coal economy this creates one kind of problem. in rhode island where oceans are about 10 inches is the score her fisheries disappear, houses that have been there for generations are falling into the ocean we have a difference of the problems. important that we on the one hand recognize that there may very well be economic effects within coal economies from trying to unburden ourselves of the environmental consequences of coal burning and we are i think very willing to work with you to mitigate those consequences. but we can't allow those consequences to take us to a.where we deny that the problem exists. that is just irresponsible and factually wrong and ultimately potentially quite disgraceful to the institutions that we all serve. so let me ask you 1st

attorney general pruett, you said one of the problems with this issue should be left to the local level. please tell me what oklahoma is doing at the local level to address carbon pollution and climate change? >> sen., if i could in response to your question also say that i did not make a reference to the whole economy. we do not have a robust coal economy. in fact our percentage generation of electricity attributed is 40 percent, which is less i think then perhaps maryland has referenced earlier. >> i wrote it down as you said it. robust coal economy. the record will be with the record is. >> i think what oklahoma has done is engage in a very much balancing effort between diverse fuel sources from the minerals that 15 percent of generated electricity to 40 percent ankle. >> role in that calculation.

public decision-making as well as my focus is attorney general is not to engage in a policy debate look at the statute that the epa's engaging. >> why would you be willing to look at the consequences of the regulation on the coal economy but not be willing to look at the consequences of this regulation on environmental protection? why is that the debate that you think you need to stay out of when you're willing actively to get into the debate on the othe >> my comments referring to the decision-making at this question. as far as balancing the generation of electricity between: between: fossil fuel. i would also say to you it is congress that should be jealous about protecting its

role in what it is calling agencies what they can and cannot do. it is congress that has set up the framework that we are talking about this morning between 111 section 112. >> the statute it is following command i am comfortable i am comfortable that they are following it. they are doing exactly what congress intended. i am very comfortable with that. what i am concerned about, we heard from senator barrasso from wyoming very important coal state that the benefits of this rule are theoretical or unknown. ..

>> >> i think we need to be careful of this area to get to grey suitable result. i yield back. >> i think have a right to ask another question but to

react to the comments made with the constitutionality of legal authority we're looking at. but this can swing both ways in different administration is. just because the constitutional overreach is too much that bears scrutiny isn't to say that another administration and other white house with the ink of the same things we do need to look at the legal implications. also there is tremendous outreach from what i said in my opening statement with the primary administrator to

hear about the seniors prices were the of people who have lost jobs or the manufacturers going on a business or concerned about price. but there has not been enough outreach to impact the states where i live. gave back to the legal authority which if any does the epa have under the clean-air act because that is with their building blocks. >> but those that dispatched the renewable energy in the efficiency. >> i will ask the same question. >> facing up with the

questions of the constitutionality every year from all of the of witnesses of life to answer it in this one way. a lot make analogies to what this committee is familiar with that heads the supreme court has endorsed it but it is materially different congress has specifically authorize the epa and has authorized them to delegate that authority. no doubt that congress can validate its authority to the us state board taken back but that fundamental distinction is the epa says to implement these portfolios standard and that

distinction is there is no debate or the dispatching system in oklahoma lawyer in energy efficiency program but in rhode island. that they cannot delegate that to the states. so with zaph flexibility cautions that come gephardt. >> so in in that area there is specific it legislative authority to go into that direction they have gone? >> that is well settled and it is very clear that congress set up the system. with the state decides not to implement it to the congress has says epa has

the authority in the first instance. but congress has never authorized epa for that standard. >> attorney-general how many states have chewing did recently? >> we have 15 states that includes attorneys general and governors and in the d.c. circuit there were three cases that came together and were consolidated. we had the state effort and industry efforts. >> is that similar to the energy producing states are is it heavily relied upon by coal or all over the board? to read these are strong energy producing states but this is bipartisan on the state of kentucky is also on board. with obviously had been reaching out to more and more states.

even on coal producing states should care fundamentally is the rule is finalized because of the implications. >> attorney general morsi is climate change a problem? >> i will not make an argument today about climate change whether the temperature is devolving because regardless behalf to be implemented in a lawful manner. that is why is listed as the attorney general of the state of west virginia. >> is climate change a problem anywhere in the world? >> i think the process matters the epa engages in

didn't. >> i did not ask you a process question. >>, i think the question on climate change is a policy consideration of this congress if you want the at epa to redress the you could amend the clean air act to give them statutory powers of the states know how to conduct themselves. >> so to be clear it is neither the attorney general's will concede that climate changes a real problem anywhere in the world. >> i think it is material to the clean air act. >> it is material to a question. okay. :to somebody -- something else. i would like to make a point

that is the price are the electricity in rhode island was 15.$0.2 per kilowatt hour compared at 9.6 in oklahoma and 9.5 per kilowatt hour in west virginia. however because several violence investment in efficiency and tell whole body of programs that could bring the usage down but they only pay compared to $110 in oklahoma in $106 in the west virginia so will both attorneys general concede that the real impact

to a consumer is the dollar amount they have to write of the check that pays the bill >> senator i think we were going some of the details how electricity prices may vary is a policy question. in west virginia we have heard the concerns of all power plant operators about the impact on electricity prices. it is important to reiterate to choose a policy objective we'll is something everyone and could reject. >> isn't that the effective policy made real by the amount of the check that day

right? >> i think most people all look at the amount. >> 5 feet wide is important across the country is to of choices and diversity in a portfolio. >> but my question was specific when you are a consumer with that economic effect what really matters is the amount of the czech that you write and long term is substantial on consumers. but the answer is yes or no. >> i maintain the status of oklahoma has an increase of costs because of the heavy hand of fossil fuels for the

energy mix. >> try rhode island because our costs are higher but it is lower than yours because of energy reduction and my time is expired. >> mr. chairman we have been talking about this since 2002 when we passed similar things to pacify legislation and i saw what happened with the first bill with the oh lieberman bill. we decisively defeated that bill and every one since that time. that has happened that this discussion this science is settled. the science is settled. all they talk about the science is settled they don't want to elaborate. i want to make it part of the record called the myth

of climate change 97%. they save 97% that it diffuse is that it takes me too long to read it by putting into the record without objection. i have talked to richard and he was quite upset with vice president al gore and as the m.i.t. professor who has been recognized as the top professors around with the very thing and to ask a question why is it that people are so concerned about regulating co2? it is a power grab regulation of carbon is a bureaucrat's dream review regulate carving you regulate life. the whole idea that the science is settled is not

true. i know people who have 12 years of their life raft death in this issue they don't recognize this but i will do this from memory. to see these cycles that take place in the world in 8895 for it to be talked about that is with another ice age is coming. the world always comes to an end then in 1918 we went into a warm spell that is the first time you heard about global warming. then 1945 they changes started to go into a cold spell. this is the interesting thing.

the year of the greatest surge of the emissions of co2 was right after the second world war mcmxlv. that was a cooling period. so these are realities for things that my good friend has said. from rhode island to talk about the reality of today. so we will hear more of this with an effort to have this bureaucratic thing the only thing to get the response from both attorneys general is a matter of flexibility. said epa would talk about the flexibility to say it

simply is hiding behind us flexibility to make the decision so does it provide space with any real flexibility? >> i think if you look at flexibility it is a false concept but states have the enormous amount of pressure applied to use them within one year. the declaration is that we receive people don't think that is possible. the goals of this proposal are so severe that states cannot come into compliance. looked at the proposal it isn't fair to say it is flexible but regard this as

they think it is desirable from a policy perspective it does not allow them to develop that flexible approach. if you look at the predicate rule of news source performance standard it teh's not rely on the best system of the initiative and reduction. >> i feel my a fellow panelist addressed flexibility out plans are adopted the with respect to performance standards that is what we're facing here. the epa takes the approach of this state of oklahoma to provide less options as far

as how to comply. >> i'm not a lawyer either. so i don't understand some of this discussion. sova to have that legislation. to put in the same bill and in some cases there are differences to say somebody else figure this out. and in the way when i saw the discussion around 111 --

111d looking at your testimony where you say the epa has defended its view with its interpretation to be reasonable these are the criteria the epa has met them. explained this. i think and the stand we do have two amendments and explain this to us please. >> in 1990 their virtue different amendments to section 111d glenn seemed to look to pollutants another to sources but they are not entirely clear the the one standing alone and the combination is not clear coming together. the epa has tried to take from each amendment something. they cannot regulate the same pollutant under both

programs. that is the judgment that agencies make all the time there are many times when statutes are not entirely clear and agency's resolve them. usually is a straightforward application the case in which the supreme court said it is not clear those policy judgments are left to the agency to make then the agency gets deference to a reasonable interpretation. so i also say in light of those comments of global warming imagine the epa says no. read to the interpretation that does not allow us to

regulate sources of greenhouse gases that emit the most and attack the problem of climate change that would be quite strange. >> yes it would. so go back to the issue of the science of climate change settles a lot. -- the lot. you believe it is? >> microphone. >> i am also not a lawyer or a climate scientist but i believe the overwhelming

majority who say is a real so now we need to act. i can tell you that there is a costa action as someone who read is responsible those who depend on reliable and affordable energy that it helps the system to include renewable energy and energy efficiency to help with that reliability issues stibnite that's fine. one last question. the standards by the supreme court decisions with of regulatory group so zealous

more. >> with the greenhouse gases so much what of we hear about the power play is an attempt to mitigate the cased. that'd isn't a dirty somehow. that case clearly holds the of pollutants are relatable under the clean air act so it is under section 111d there was no federal court made a lot for global warming pollution. of one of the most famous reasons, back to force. the regulatory group it seems is day victory for the greenhouse gas program and

secondly it asks the epa to make sure that provision made sense. that is exactly what the epa has done. >> this is of a good piano and i commend you. the key for coming if i ever go to law school i went to you as my professor. [laughter] >> thank you. is there a question is for the record? >> it will be open for two weeks. we appreciate your patience. thank you. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

add kid your cages. gives these people a break. [laughter] plus a quarter into which. the subcommittee will come to order. the hearing today on global health programs with say a panel of been incredibly brilliant people who i am honored to welcome you to to the united states senate in the american people and the

people they represent. ambassador at large brooks thank you for coming sheet helps to combat hiv/aids dannay's a representative for u.s. department of state the director of the global fund of tuberculosis and malaria. sir elton john and founder of the elton john aids foundation and pastor record and pastor of saddleback church you have an incredible busy schedule and talk about cause is near and dear to your heart i will make every statement the key for showing up it is the pleasure working with few senators said in the minority and majority and as politics change we will make sure commitments does not

change. at the end of the day i have tried to shine a light on what the 150 count does for the world's 1 percent of the budget in this is what i would suggest to other members of the body, find an account anywhere that gives a better rate of return than the 150 account. 1% of the budget when you add it up that includes all funding from the state department and our embassies and consulates and a small portion goes to fighting aids and malaria and tuberculosis and other diseases. i want to the american taxpayer to know that with my opinion i have never seen a better return on investment. the private sector and the federal government and other international organizations have been collaborating for

over a decade for fighting aids and we are winning. at the end of the day the scourged is put in a box but it is growing in africa for reasons we must address for future commitment of money money, and now was not the time to back off. we are bitterly inside the 10-yard line with some of these diseases and there are thousands if not millions of people alive today because of america's intervention and taxpayer generosity and national security effort to stabilize developing parts of the world so rampant diseases like aids and malaria and tuberculosis can be contained. from the economic point of view we create a customer

base where companies can do business with millions of people on the continent i have come to love that have an affinity for the american people and our way of life. i belief when she does things that are right to even though we have economic challenges at home, compared to most we are incredibly rich but not with our breakout but our attitude in the way the american people in engaged though world price have to give one example to explain america from faraway i would use this account, there represents the best of the american people it is transparent, well-managed s aving lives and changing the world. having said that it is a

risk. sequestration budget cuts if fully enacted will devastate the ability to fulfill its promise. literally we're inside the 10-yard line and the budget cuts that are coming under sequestration will destroy our ability to make progress in and we will lose any gains we have achieved over time. with $19 trillion in debt we have to evaluate your spending. but this account is not long on that it makes us richer. this account but i believe is the smartest use of federal dollars of any place within the federal government. and it is my commitment that we not abandon this account

at a time we are so close to achieving the purposes which is to change the world in a positive fashion. with that i recognize senator leahy. >> we have worked together for so many years and to go back and forth sometimes you were chairman or i am sure minh but we come out with the bill almost always wear we are in total agreement and this initiative should not be caught with partisan politics and i cannot think of wine that has strong support with global health we support investments to combat diseases. i know last night with our discussion and pastor rick

warren that a lot of these diseases can be prevented or treated or cheered. if it happened to us we would come up with whatever amount of money but countries don't have the money very few americans suffer from river blindness or polio or yellow fever. when you are the wealthiest country on earth there is a moral responsibility that goes beyond political or economic. especially when they affect millions of people that is woefully inadequate health services and hiv/aids identified 33 years ago.

aids and tuberculosis continue to be a serious problem but we can't do better. but the rates of infection in here in this country pale compared to other countries like sub-saharan africa africa, southeast asia, eastern europe, the chairman has pointed out the budget restraints that we have but that doesn't mean we suddenly, we do have a lot of money to spend we need to pick where we go but to make sure we use our best resources for both the ebola catastrophe those that realize it was relatively easy to do detect and contain especially before the experience symptoms so

not if it will occur but where tb and fast to have public health partners with such a pandemic. we will pay more of millions of dollars spent. but also to be in the defense appropriations for who want to be here. every one of you works hard on these issues. you could find much easier things to tackle and i applaud you all. we have known each other aid number of years and you could sit back and relax. the you push us all the time

for grey don't want to say anything about teeeighteen going after us on a moral issue but he has spoken in to me where our conscience should be on more than one occasion. that is important. of the doctors and the expertise they bring we need it stomach 84 being a good partner. >> the cute ranking member and members of the subcommittee i am honored to appear before you today which has provided visionary the leadership of the united states emergency plan for error relief. millions of men and women and children are alive today because of the compassion and bipartisan commitment of

congress. the leadership of george to be a bush and president barack obama and the true generosity of the american people. as you have seen firsthand pet far is not only in a transformative program but it is the outstanding expression of diplomacy. i am privileged to be joined of three great leaders the ambassador cruz stewardship of pepfar has been extraordinary, tnt and the voice of compassion for those affected by the epidemic and sir elton john and a powerful advocate for people living with hiv/aids over decades. pepfar has changed of trajectory of the pandemic. added score it has offered hope and healing and the possibility of prosperity in a place of sickness and suffering and death.

today because of teach-ins' 7.seven n women and children are receiving life-saving treatment and more than 1 million babies have been born hiv free. those medical voluntary circumcisions has been performed and success is then our grasp of refocus and decelerate and sustain our efforts. it has strengthened all aspects of the health system not only supporting those a live with hiv/aids but also those around the global health security but our work is far from done. every week nearly 40,000 people are infected a 7,000 young women. millions of young women are entering a the window of the most susceptibility to infection and we have to work diligently to stay

ahead of this epidemic. if we don't act now there is an estimated 28 million new infections by 23 more than and the global resources can support for actions over the next five years are critical with chlorinated efforts to reduce the number of hiv infections to under 200,000 per year by 23 as compared to the current trajectory of 2.5 million new infections per year. utilize a very granular daybed to rivlin approach for interfaith -- for evidence based population and geographic areas for maximum impact of every dollar it is not easy but the right thing and will prevent new infections leading to control of the epidemic.

relaunched the sustainability index for those element to controlling the epidemic including the contributions that they make to the national response. it leverage is the expertise of of government and faith based organization and other partners include in the private sector over the most treatment and prevention. the initiative of the 200 million partnership with investment fund foundation to treat 300,000 additional children by the end of 2016. dreams is the $210 million partnership from the bill in linda gates foundation to prevent hiv infection in

adolescent girls and young women. finally we cannot control the epidemic without putting an end to the stigma and discrimination that force people living with the end of risk to the very margins. read access to service including mickey populations. at this critical time of response we know what needs to be done in three have the tools to do it. the continued leadership of the united states is vital to ensure we have the aids free generation because the alternative is unthinkable. chairman drinking member and members of the subcommittee the un charter terrain will test our resolve improvident we can reach our destination the wave refocus and strengthen and accelerate our efforts of partnerships will hasten our arrival. thank you for the opportunity to appear before

you today i am profoundly grateful for your ongoing and unwavering support of this subcommittee for pepfar to afford your questions. he was with adult an ex-and doing better. but want to recognize his contribution to this cause. is he communicate with the me several times regretting not being able to be here. but one foundation is one of the anchor tenants of the whole effort worldwide. so i want to recognize the fact that is with us in spirit. could i just interject here. he has kept a good sense of humor whether i have called after the accident back in dublin. he said well, the fellow members of the band said that it is a good thing that he was wearing his helmet so he would not damage the sidewalks of new york. [laughter] okay. all right. mark? thank you very much mr. chairman. chairman graham. and ranking members of the distinguished committee and

expert staff. thank you for your leadership. this committee. and this chamber this. congress and two administrations have reached across party lines to reach this committee your chamber or congress has reached across party lines to reach those it needs. on the brink of ending three plagues to that have been around since recorded medical history. and on the path to ex-tivenlths while building resilient systems and economies. including me into the panel el. humbling to be here with the world famous preacher and performer and expert scientist. and all friends for many years. i will try to do my best to make three points. with your continued leadership. we will make history. and strengthen partnership through shared responsibility. and to drive innovation. advances in science that i know have you heard about before and also the experience of the investment

that have you made in the last 15 years have put us on the brink of ending malaryan and tuberculosis and again they have been around since the recorded medical history and hiv/aids in the path to not be epidemics anymore. end them as public health threats. with leadership with the anyone fections have dropped dramatically. 55 countries. 55 countries are on the path by the end of the year to reduce malaria by 7 5% and 26 of them are on the path to elimination. there has been a remarkable progress in reducing death. we have the clear choice as ambassador bishgz pointed out and accelerated that role to ending epidemics and rick the resurgence much the diseases and undermining your investments of the last 15 years. the global fund contribute today the progress we have raised about $4 billion a year. and in part through generosity and large part

through generosity and have contribute today putting millions into theant viral treatments. 12 million were tested and treated for tuberculosis and they have not been distributed. the global fund is the largest of tb. and malaria. and finance so efforts are incredibly important. as chairman graham pointed out, beyond theed health individuals, the diseases have enormous impact on economic loss in the developing world. for example it is estimate that had nigeria alone will lose 3. 5 billion per year in the gdp because of malarab malair yeah. and the healthy productive people. make healthy productive nation nations and good trading partners and not just there for an issue of public health but economic interests to accelerate progress to ending the diseases. and as we have pointed out. have you all pointed out by working together we will bring out the best in humanity. and collective commitments

will change the course of had history by ending the epidemics lifting up the human beings. and lifting up those often left behind and marginalized and they mentioned young women. they are often 5 to 10 times more likely to be infected than the young boys. and 5 to 10 times more likely. driving the epidemic. with the youth the increase of young people there is a risk of an explosion. and undermining the progress that has been made. new data suggests that if we can work just to support and to keep the girls in school hiv rates will drop by 60%. and if the girls will stay in school they will not get married early or have economic tune its. they will reinvest in health education. nutrition. and bringing in the opportunity to their children. we are working closely with the initiative. pep far id. and gates foundation and otheres to intervene here to, fundamentally change the course of the girls history. initialling vestments in the

hiv over the past decade are bringing up a positive affect on the overall health system as well. including a response to ebola. i was talking with women that were train today go door-to-door with malaria and going door to do to prevent and fight ebola. how do we achieve the goals of ending up digits and building health systems in societies? we do it through partnership and the global fund is the largest public-private people we are the public-private people of the response of diseases and health. we work so closely with the ambassador's pepfar and others. for every dollar to the global fund we leveraged the european commission and corporations and faith community. and to finance here reinquiring the countries to match what we invest in. what you invest in to unlock

the resources and so far we have leveraged $3.9 billion in the last two years in order to increase countries contribution to fighting epidemics. as we know. based on the u.n. aide reports. they are investing more on the hiv and external financing that is remarkable and happening since 2012. and they have long provided 80% of the financing for tuberculosis and more for malaria. the increase has been critical and the private sector is as well. global fund has had 1.7 billion dollars contributed to it from the private sector. as bill and melinda gates have been the largest contributors and bono through project red and corporate partnerships have contributed $$3,000,000 and from the countries and indonesia and vietnam. commitments from individuals

and working to get more:. now that is value for money. mr. chairman ranking member leahy and distinguished members you are the leaders that will

make this happen. thank you for your support. we look forward to serve with you as public/private partnership arm to fight these diseases. >> dr. warren. >> chairman graham and ranking member leahy members subcommittee. thank you for inviting me here today. i have so much respect and admiration for all of you. i agree that the 150 account is probably the most effective account in the united states budget. what you're doing matters to our nation, it matters to the world. actually it is a matter of life and death to millions of people around the world. i'm not just pastor of saddleback church. i'm founder of a global peace plan that sent teams to 197 countries. i sent in my own church, 24,869 of my members served in 197 quint at thises, which is 57

more countries than the peace corps served. by the way before i address the matter of global health, i want to thank you about previous hearing protecting religious liberty abroad. that is a big issue and spoke about that in my printed remarks. as you know from your hearings previously we're making a lot of progress on pandemics like hiv, malaria and tb while the momentum is he had haded in the right direction now is the time to move for eradication. a lot of times in the third quarter of a game people say, well we know how the outcome is going to happen. let's let off, let off the pedal and they will leave the game. we can't do that now. the super bowl is a good example what happens in the last second of a game. and i believe it will take three catalytic factors in order to eradicate hiv malaria and tv.

dtb. we must form a new perspective on foreign assistance. second, we must forge a new perspective, a new partnership in distribution. and third we must fund a new priority in the budget which would include ending sequestration. now i have covered this in detail in my written testimony. i want to spend most of time on partnerships and new distribution with you let me make forming a new perspective on assistance. there are voices today who sincerely believe cut back or eliminate all foreign assistance. this idea resonates with a lot of voters for a couple of reasons. first, they have no idea that this amount is actually less than 1% of the budget. they think it is a big amount. it's not. and second, they don't realize the strategic value of foreign assistance. they have never considered that the right kind of foreign assistance especially for health education, development may be our most effective cost efficient strategy for security

against the next generation of terrorism. this is what i mean by new perspective. now proverbs 3:27 in the bible tells morally wrong to withhold assistance from those who need it with we have in our power to help them. but there are also strategic reasons why it would be shortsighted and unwise to cut back our assistance in global health. first, when america saves lives of dying people from preventable diseases we make friends. that's obvious. around the world i've often been told please thank americans for pepfar. it saved my husband's life my wife's life, my children's life, kept our family from economic disaster. we will always be grateful to america and we will pray for you. when we make friends like that save save lives potential enemies are turned into allies. when you save somebody's life they have zero desire to terrorize them. when poor countries are overwhelmed by pandemics stuck in poverty, no capital creative

opportunities they get resentful of nations that ignore the plight. that resentment makes them right for angry ideologies. so it is far more effective far more cost effective far cheaper for americans to send medicine to make friends now than to send troops to fight enemies later. medicines cost less than tanks. the resource west budget for humanitarian relief help programs, economic development, education, training can really save us from spending far far more to send soldiers when resentment boils over. that is the new perspective i'm talking about. we need to frame this, not as just some charity that we do. it is strategically smart for america's security and safety to help people who are in pain. the second catalyst in eradicating preventable diseases we have to forge new partnerships in distribution. sometimes you have to team tackle a player on a football field. he is so big one person can't

take him down. and this is where i call in to reference what i call the three legs of the stool. a one-legged stool will fall over and a two legged stool will fall over but a three-legged stool will stand. i've been invited to speak at davos world economic forum numerous times. they said i we need public/private partnerships. when i hear that you're right. you're only 2/3 of the way. you're leaving out the biggest sector the faith sector t dwarfs the other two sectors. put this in perking speculative. there are 600 million buddhists in the world. 800 million hindus in the world. 1 1/2 billion muslims in the world. 2.3 billion christians in the world. the actual number of people without faith is quite small outside of manhattan and parts of europe. most people have a faith. and if you want to talk about distribution, you have to use faith communities. i could take you to 10 million

villages around the world. only thing in it is a church. in much of the world the church is the only social sector outside of the capitol. and even if we have all the meds for tb, a.i.d.s., hiv malaria and all other diseases issue of distribution will not be solved unless we mobilize local churches let me give you one illustration. at the end of president bush's term of office, he invited me to be the closing speaker of the global summit on malaria. i said i will come if i can bring some pastors from africa. so i did. at the end of the talk i stood up and i said i'm going to show you three slides that show you why you can't solve any global problem without the faith community. so i put up, let me show you one example. i've been in 164 countries but this is just one.

rwanda, i said, we went there and we said, what would you like? the western province of rwanda needs health care. so we went there. i put up a sign, a map of rwanda, western rue wand today. i said here are the three hospitals for about a million people. it is a two days walk to any of these hospitals. that is not good enough health care to have to walk two days to get your health care. by the way two of these three hospitals, they're faith based. you wouldn't even have them if it weren't for the church. i put up the next slide. here are 18 clinics. i said, three 18 clinics only a day's walk. if you've been to developing clinic is often a bottle of aspirin on the shelf or even less than that. i said, that is better than three hospitals but i said, by the way, only 16 of those are faith based. you wouldn't have those without the church. i put up third map. it was covered with dots. here are over 600 churches in this division. now where would you like to get

your health care? two days walk, five minutes -- one day's walk or five minutes away? linda gates sitting on the front row. i get it, work the church could be distribution center for health care. i said, melinda it had been for 2000 years. put it in perspective the church hospital. if we're going to absolutely eradicate disease we have to do combination of public sector, private sector and the faith sector, the three legs of the stool. again, i would encourage, if there is anyway we could end sequestration, i'm in favor of that. there are a lot of areas i think we could cut the budget. this is one area of bud should be increased for strategic reasons. thank you. >> thank you very much, rick. sir elton john. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman, senator leahy, around members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to let me testify this morning.

it's a very daunting task sitting at a table with three amazing people who are in the trenches every day fighting this disease who are doing incredible work. so i'm very humbled by being here and humbled amongst the company i'm keeping. in 2003 at the invitation of senator ted kennedy i had the honor of speaking before the senate health committee in my capacity as the founder of the elton john a.i.d.s. foundation. i created the foundation in 1992 to address the dire need to provide basic services and support to those dying from a.i.d.s. over the past 23 years we have raised over $321 million to fund organizations that provide direct treatment and prevention efforts in dozens of countries around the globe. the first time i testified before congress 12 years ago almost no one had access to

antiretroviral medicine in sub-saharan africa where the epidemic was most acute. people were being infected and dying by the millions even though we very literally had the drugs that could save their life in our hands. at that point 12 million children in sub-saharan africa had been orphaned by a.i.d.s. african leaders had declared a.i.d.s. to be a state of emergency worldwide more than 30 million people were hiv-postive. the disease left nothing but despair. ruin, and fear in its wake. i saw it with my own eyes as i traveled to hardest hit regions on behalf of my foundation and our grantees. without the funds needed to make life saving drugs available in africa, my foundation invested in dramatically expanding palliative care and a hospice networks. across south africa, uganda and contend i can't we help give a

dignified death to more than 800,000 men women children. we provided food, shelter and basic education to over three million orphans left in their wake. it was a compassionate response but it didn't solve the problem. in those years the epidemic was only escalating until in a time of great need and urgency republican president and bipartisan majority in the united states congress created pepfar. the president emergency plan for a.i.d.s. relief. compassionate leaders from both sides of the aisle said to the international community america can and american will lead the world in the global fight against a.i.d.s. today, thanks to the unprecedented actions of congress and hiv-postive mother in south africa can give birth to a healthy hiv-free baby who

can live, she can live to raise. today thanks to the generosity of the american people, 9.4 million men, women, children have access to life saving anti-retroviral treatments. where there was once despair, ruin and fear, there is now hope life, laughter and love. pepfar has done more than just save lives, it has provided basic infrastructure and trained more than 100,000 health care workers to prevent future outbreaks in countries like botswana tanzania, kenya and uganda. congress support for global fund for a.i.d.s., tb, malaria enabled investments from governments and corporations worldwide and leveraged $2 for everyone dollar invested by the united states. thereby expanding its reach and impact. i'm grateful this included up to one billion pounds from the

united kingdom over the past three years. from my foundation too congress's leadership has been transformational. what we once invested in hospice to care for the dying has been repurposed to treat the living. my foundation treated over three million people for hiv in africa and linked more than 400,000 patients to life-saving treatment on the continent since 2012. combined with efforts funded by united states we've contributed to the 48% global reduction in mother to child transmission of hiv. in short we are no longer bailing out a sinking ship. we are helping steer it into a safe harbor. mr. chairman, because of the actions of this congress, the cause of the -- course of the a.i.d.s. epidemic was altered for all humanity. because the american people had the optimism, the ingenuity and the will to make a difference, the lives of millions of people halfway around the world have

been saved. but i'm here today with a simple message. the a.i.d.s. epidemic is not over. and america's continued leadership is critical. there is a window of opportunity before us, a window through which we can very clearly see the end of a.i.d.s. within my lifetime. we can not afford to let the window close. >> amen. >> if our efforts flag, drug resistance will surface transmission rates will rise, and this disease which knows no boundaries will once again become a ruthless pandemic with disasterous and far-reaching consequences. i have stood in too many, at too many bedsides in america and england and across africa, helplessly watching peach die in pain to bear the thought that we might go back to those dark days. it is unthinkable. on the other hand, if we continue the historic work of

pepfar and the global fund, if we honor the 40 million lives lost over the past three decades we can and will see the day when no longer a horrifying global killer but a contained and controlled cron tick illness. mr. chairman, this is the most powerful legislative body in the world and this congress indeed has the power to end a.i.d.s. you have the power toe maintain america's historic commitment to leading the global campaign against this disease. i'm here today to ask you to use that power. to seize this window of opportunity, to change the course of history. and one day soon i hope to extend my thanks to you to this congress, to the united states of america, not only for fighting this disease but for ending it once and for you will all. thank you. >> and end it right on time. it you is amazing.

after this, how would you like to vote against this account? [laughter] what would you say? the terrorists want you to vote no. i guess that is only thing i can think about. so anyway, mark. name countries that could do more that are not. >> thank you mr. chairman. it's a long list. i just came from one china actually arriving last night. they once actually received resources from the global fund but now are giving. they have transited out. >> so can they do more? >> they can and we're working to invest with them more? >> what about the gulf countries. >> the gulf countries could definitely do considerably more in the fight against three diseases. parts of southeast asia. they are transitioning from recipient. >> we've not asking people to give who have their own problems. we're talking about people with economic ability to give that are not. >> these countries do have considerable economic ability and they are stepping up.

>> what about europe, how would you rate europe's response? >> europe is doing quite well in a number of places. the u.k., sir elton john mentioned. france is the second largest contributor. >> where is germany. >> germany is increasing its commitment as currently number five six. japan is number five. >> in terms of economic power in europe how does germany rank? >> they're certainly number one. >> so they're number five on giving number one in -- >> to the global fund. they just increased commitment to gavi and increased commitment to us and increased commitment to do even more. >> thank you very much. rick, these churches that are new distribution, network will you take anybody that comes? >> absolutely. in fact after i made that presentation at president bush's malaria conference i said i'm going to prove that can do it faster than any ngo or any

government. so i went to that area of rwanda and i asked pastors, i said would you be interested in us training your people in basic health care because you're never going to have a doctor in your village. there will never be enough doctors for every village in the world? 18 pastors said yes. i said grab two people from your congregation. we'll start training them. started training them in basic health care. muslims came to us, said would you train us? we said sure. this is human issue. not a religious issue. so you picked two out of your mosques. there were two mosques that coast people to be trained. that group grew to 60. we trained them to 100 -- 120. then 340. on and on. we kept multiplying. this last august i went to that area of rwanda and did a rally fo? over 3,000 trained health care workers who each visited seven families a week. they make hospital calls. they make house visits. and, we did it with little, very

little money. and these people are saying, we started off with simple stuff like, wash our hands, hang out sheets to dry. how to do sanitation. and dressing wounds, stitching a wound. but they can learn things how to administer arvs. how to do peer, what do i want -- peer coaching to make sure that they do their compliance with the drugs. it can be done. and, now we have many other countries asking for the same model. >> madam ambassador, what will sequestration do to our ability to get this thing put away in terms of a.i.d.s. and how would it affect the pepfar program if we fully implement sequestration? >> you heard from our testimony we're doing everything we can to focus every dollar we have because there's always more need than there are dollars. and so we take a very strong

responsibility and insuring that we focus the dollars we have optimally. but any cut in those dollars would lead to unmet -- >> what the cut would be to 2021? >> you have mentioned it would be quite extraordinary. >> go find a number. go find a number and tell me. if you don't know the number you need to find night we'll find the number and get it for you. >> i want everybody the global fund, tell me what the number is. i want to tell my colleagues, i have x dollars today and you will have y dollars tomorrow and this is what it means. so you should know these numbers because they're dramatic. sir elton john, you've been following the battle for a long time. you say we're close what is the biggest, your worth fear? >> worst fear is stigma, to be honest with you. we're seeing especially in african countries lgbt community

suffering under draconian laws. when people, like that who are suffering from hiv are penalized, they go underground and the disease is spread even further. stigmatizing people pause they have hiv is the worst thing one can do. that's the for me, the biggest problem that we face. once we get people on drugs it is fantastic. but getting people to feel unashamed, to feel that they're okay with this virus not to feel they're being threatened by their own government because they maybe have a sexual orientation a leader of the government doesn't approve of is incredibly important. not only is it a humane crime it is a medical crime as well. as, those two sides to that coin. one, you're telling people that they're worthless. and two people that are worthless who are sick, you're telling them they're not

treatable. you're driving them underground. you're making them feel worthless, you're making, my whole thing with my organization, my foundation, nobody should be left behind. listen we live in a world so materialistic, so narcissistic the world needs compassion. the world needs leaders to show compassion. the current pope is someone i revere very much because he is beginning to show so much more compassion in humane way than his two predecessors did. this is vital to the recovery of self-belief and self-worth in this world. if people are told they're worthless and unloved then where are we as human beings? if christ was alive today, i believe in christ he would be al paul at the way people are being stigmatized. we need people to be included to feel love and to feel compassion. without that infreed end in this whole mixture of medicine and everything else, then we face an ongoing battle. i really encourage governments are throughout the world saying that homosexuality is a sin and

everything like that, they are making their disease worse. in the long consequences for their country their economy is going to suffer and the disease will spread even further. it is inhumane and inhumane from people suffering from this disease. >> from private sector point of view have you been able to raise adequate amount of funds even though the economy is crippled around the world? or are they still giving? >> they are. there. >> they are. there is a lot of people suffering from diseases. as pepfar has done, they treated malaria and tb. the more you train people as rick said to train companies where they haven't enough medical staff train people to look after people, if africa, when we started people are not using taking tablet or pill. they're not used to that. they're used to have local traditional healer give them

something. it is a mater of education. once you tell people, if i have an event, if i tell people, look here is what we're doing. we'll build somewhere, to educate people or mothers to mothers transmission. you can see this is improving knowledge of the disease and the treatment you're going to give people, people will dip into their pockets. i think when we started off in, with this disease there were so many different foundations. there is not many standing but we all work together. i think we're a very strong force. i think we're a force for good and i think we're very, we had a meeting last night and the comradery and feeling i get from the american people is so touching. you have to remember i'm british. i have come over here in 1970. this country gave everything to me as a professional musician. it has given everything to me as a human being. and, the strength, and the willingness to help people in the rest of the world has touched me so much.

it was ryan white who pointed out to me that my life was completely disordered. i was a drug addict. i was self-obsessed ass hole, excuse me. and ryan white and his wonderful family turned my life around. he was a young boy, who had a.i.d.s. he was hemophiliac. he was treated very badly by people who were ignorant and knew better. he never got angry and forgave. we have to have compassion. we have to have forgiveness. have to have inclusion of everybody, whether intravenous drug users. whether prisoners. whether it is people who are gay, whether transgender people, we're all human beings. we're all children of god. and if we throw that away then we're throwing everything down the drain. so my, when i explain this to people and people are good people. i believe in the goodness of the human spirit. look at this room here, for example. we don't have any problems

raising money. very long-winded answer to your question. but, no, people are very generous. if you explain to them where their money is going, you show them what it is doing they will dip into their pockets. >> thank you. senator leahy. >> thank you mr. chairman. i, i didn't think it was long-winded at all. something that should be heard over and over and over again. there is one thing ambassador birx and dr. dybul question has been asked on dollars be honest and direct what the see questions operation. -sequestration. janet and alex, far more knowledgeable on the nitty-gritty than i am. the numbers i'm seeing, are devastating. they're devastating. and, they're not, anywhere near

the numbers that senator graham and i in bipartisan way have supported in the past. so don't sugarcoat it. make it very clear. and, sir elton you talked about how much less expensive it is for prevention than care after the fact. and 'm aware ofokym that. iw3 know pastor warren and i have talked about this before. and you were mentioning about holding the quilt. when you were speaking last night. and, i think my dear friend, i grew up with from vermont, and when he was diagnosed and he was actually a public figure in vermont, rest his soul, he when he was first diagnosed i remember okays stray sized.

my wife and i came to a large gathering. people were trying to avoid him. this was some years back. my wife is a registered nurse. she walked up and gave him a great big hug and a kiss. he said right up to the time he died that changed his life. after that people wouldn't avoid him because they knew my wife. she is actually more, a lot more popular in vermont than i am. they saw marcel do that, and they they -- so keep on, keep on pointing that out. it's not long-winded. it is important. even today people need to hear that. we've known about hiv and a.i.d.s. for more than 30 years but it is still a huge health -- even here in the united states, we have pockets in the united states where it's growing. you would think that with all the education, it would be

cutting back. what the things we should be doing differently in combating this? are we focusing on the right countries? i mean we've, we know we're going to have a finite amount of money. how do we spend it best? sorry to put you on the spot. we're struggling for that here. >> how do you spend it best? well you, you still continue what you're doing. the pepfar is doing giving the antiretroviral drugs to people that can't have access to them. getting the infrastructure in countries where there is no infrastructure so that people actually can receive drugs and get them on daily basis because a lot of these people live in rural areas, they don't know how to do it. you have to educate people. you have -- education is very

important. prevention is very important and you heard earlier that young juvenile women in africa are accounting for juvenile women now, the second cause of death largest cause of death in the world is young juvenile women through a.i.d.s. this is catastrophic. and you have to educate them. and you have to spend the money very very wisely. that is all i can say. mark, have you got anything you could add on that or not? >> up -- >> we all have the thing that, dr. dybul, we're seeing increases in parts of this country. i mean -- you would think that it would be decreasing everywhere in the world. what sir elton talked about the young women in africa. we're seeing it, men and women in this country. in what, where where are we missing the point?

>> i think in the rural south it is very big problem. amongst young gay men having sex with men, it is a big problem. i think maybe because they feel that they are not going to die. that this disease has you know, we've mentioned it, someone mentioned that, you know, this disease can be a manageable disease. you can live with this disease. and i think in this country, which is has all the sophisticated medicine available that people are having unsafe sex. they're thinking if i have unsafe sex i'm going to be okay because there is a pill i can take, not really knowing or understanding the consequences of what that pill might do to their body in the long run. in africa they don't have the option. they just want to live. over here they're able to live because they have the medicine available and in africa and asia, they don't have that

option some of the people because they don't have the medicine. and i think you've seen a rise, a, it is cyclical. seems to happen every 10 years that this disease starts to rise again amongst the young. and, i'm at a loss to explain it because, you know, everyone knows the consequences of being hiv-postive. now as i say you can live a safe healthy life like a diabetic, probably easier to treat someone with hiv than a diabetic. that would be my explanation why you're seeing a rise. in the rural south it is also a huge problem as well. and i think again a lot of it is stigma. a lot of people not wanting to admit they have the disease. not a lot of people are getting tested. a lot of people are not getting tested and walking around not knowing they have the disease. there is still a lot of fear in a country so sophisticated a america. in my country great britain, the

same thing is occurring. >> thank you. dr. birx, my last question, i can ask questions all day long but, the president's fiscal year 2016 request for pepfar is at 300 million-dollar impact fund. this rewards governments to take steps to, as i understand, to realign the national programs to combat hiv a.i.d.s. in the most areas, most severely affected. and i understand you're implementing similar realignment of pepfar. funds. now, some who challenged that say that there are areas that are going to receive less funding and that is going to be severe impact on them. would you like to explain what's happening? >> thank you senator. so there is two things that

we're doing. we are fortunate because of the way congress set up pepfar that we have very granular data down to the site level. we know precisely now where there is hiv and where there isn't hiv. what we have found over the last 10 years, is a real evolution that in areas where there is very little hiv we have excellent coverage of all services. sometimes over 100%. because people have come over the border to access services. and in areas where hiv is the most prevalent where the incidents is the highest say in kenya, around kasumu and humo bay, the delivery is 30 to 45%. we've created inequity where areas we've been oversurveying and areas where we're substantially undersurveying population. working with the governments to go through the information in very careful way what you described at the end of the question doesn't happen. we're committed obviously to maintaining all of the services

in the areas that are very low burden and are working with governments and global fund to insure that there is a safety net. we're also working and geographically mapping the sites down to the absolute precise gps coordinates so we can tell you there are 10 sites here all within half a kilometer and we only need two. so it would be much more effective to have two sites all within walking distance. all within less than half an hour of walking distance. increase the number of sites in the very high burden areas. so because what is happening if you're a pregnant woman in kasumo, you have a much lower chance of being diagnosed to and linked to services if you're a pregnant in krecho, kenya only 50 kilometers away. this is the type of work we've been doing. >> thank you. senator. >> thank you chairman gram. i want to thank the passion and

compassion of panel today. i appreciate it. in a city not characterized by compassion you bring that here today. we thank you for that. i was struck sir elton john, but a statement you made in your testimony. there is a window of opportunity before us, a window which we can very clearly see the end of a.i.d.s. within my lifetime. what is the greatest barrier that you see to accomplishing that goal? >> a reduction in funds of pepfar. a reduction, would be a huge blow. the world has to step up. and keep the funding going. the more funds we get the more medicine we can get to people, the more we can educate them. let me put this bluntly. we talked about sub-saharan africa, we talked about asia. we haven't talked about russia, we haven't talked about the middle east. countries that don't even talk about it. we have no idea what the epidemic is like there but i have a suspicion that it is not

great. but they don't talk about because it is, not part of their thing to admit that he have this a huge problem. so the more money that's given the more, once those figures are released and we don't know anything about china either. we have to maintain the funding. that is the biggest biggest thing we have to do. and we have to educate people and we have the stigma again. we have to make people feel that they're loved and not shamed. and that is a big issue. i think rick would agree with me that, what he does with his church is, the church preaches love. and that is what we must also do. but along with the funding which is so essential that is why i'm here today we're all hear today saying we hope that the united states government and congress and senate will not cut the funding of pepfar because if they do, it will be a complete disaster again. we'll go back to square one. it is only going to get worse. so it is a mixture of coming

together everybody everybody some other countries have to step up to the plate here. america can't do this all on its own. i don't think the e.u. is doing enough. obviously china is not doing enough. japan is not doing enough. these are countries that can afford to do it. as a panel of people we have to go in to say with can we do here to have those people step up to the plate. to make sure america not only country in the world is doing it. it can't. it can only provide 33% of the global fund. as a panel here we have to go away, say, listen, these other countries need to step up to the plate. but the funding is so important. the more money we can the more we can stablize the world, the suffering from a.i.d.s. and more compassion we can show to people with a.i.d.s., then, i think that's the way to go it is not an easy solution. >> thank you for that very thoughtful response on it. i. i want to pivot over here for a moment and ask dr. warren a

question. in your testimony you call religious liberty america's first freedom. i think you made opening remarks thanking the, for thanking panel for those protections fighting for that. it is the first phrase of the first sentence in the first amendment of the bill of rights. our founding fathers obviously cared a great deal about this issue as i know you do as well and the fight for religious freedom was essential in the country's fight for independence. in your view what is the state of relidge just liberty in this country today and are we doing enough to protect it? >> as i pointed as i pointed out in my written testimony religious liberty is what america was founded on. it is the first freedom. it is not accident we call it the first freedom. it is the first phrase of the first sentence of the first paragraph of the first amendment. it comes before freedom of speech, before freedom of the press, before freedom to assemble, before the right to bear arms, before every other freedom because if i do not have the freedom of conscience to

believe what i want to believe i don't need freedom of speech. if i don't have freedom to believe what i want to believe i don't need the freedom to assemble. if i don't have the freedom to believe and practice my beliefs i don't need freedom of the press. so that is very extremely important and it's all part of what i call holistic assistance. that the kind of assistance that is needed around the world is it is not just, meds aren't enough. we have to do all the whole reason we started the peace plan because when we started dealing with people with a.i.d.s., we realized oh, they need education. oh they need job training. oh, there is poverty issues here. all of these things are holistic. as a church, all of the things that elton was just talking about, we have a little church. there are six things a church can do.

care for and support the sick. that is c. we handle testing and counseling. u, unleash army of volunteers. r, we remove the stigma. which we were just talking about. c, champion healthy behavior. we h, help with nutrition and medicine. it is a holistic approach. you can't just do one thing. and, even think religious liberty falls into that. just one of the other factors i actually had debates on this in china with with the chinese politburo. so. >> so, back to a comment that elton john made as well about the need for funding. in the tax code you believe tax code should incentivize funding. >> i believe that. >> what about charitable importance to fight a.i.d.s. and global health issues in the u.s. and overseas? >> pastor i'm interested in

people's personal growth and character. if you tax me, and then use that money to help the poor, i don't get any credit for it. if you incentivise my generosity, and then i am generous, i actually grow in character by being generous. now, i'm obviously in favor of the government funding and increasing funding for these kind of things. i think there are a lot of things we could cut this should be expanded. i believe that the 150 line item really does need to be expanded. it is so miniscule. we get more bang for the buck. but i also believe at the same time, this is probably not the committee for it. we ought to incentivize generosity. the tax code should reward generosity, rather than tap it. and, of course americans are the most generous nation there is but we could be even more generous if we create a system that encourages it. people, whatever is rewarded is repeated.

>> great, thank you. thanks mr. chairman. >> thank you, chairman graham. i just want to start by thanking you, ranking member leahy for your bipartisanship, for your passion, for your commitment to insuring that we have thorough and productive hearings, that we look hard at the human suffering and at the opportunities we have to do good in the world but to do good well and to do it in a way that is sustainable and bipartisan and effective. i really appreciate your leadership on these important and valuable issues. i want to thank the panel today, for reminding us of what it means to be american and what we can do when we do the best in our national spirit and we bring our best capabilities to the fore. reverend warren, i appreciate you reminding us we have scriptural injunction not to withhold food from those that deserve it when within our power to help them. sir elton john i appreciate your compelling and personal testimony how a change in your own life was brought forward by

ryan white and dramatic impact you made across the world. how the two of you in partnership are really helping demonstrate what it means to accept welcome, to love and celebrate a wide range of people who are otherwise suffering. i agree with you, that fighting stigma against lgbtq community in africa is one of the most important things we can do to avoid marginalization. to avoid the spread of the disease and to frankly show our humanity. and so in my limited opportunities as the africa subcommittee chair the last four years, visiting 15 countries i tried very hard to press that point because the human consequences of ongoing oppression based on orientation are very real. this is very real threat we all face across the world. if i could mr. dybul dr. dybul, thank you for your leadership on the global fund. as you know in the last congress i introduced a maternal and child health bill which i hope we will renew in this congress

and give access to innovative financing techniques to strengthen the amount of resources available for maternal and child health. that is really core issue we're talking about here today is how to sustain in a difficult budget environment these vital investments. tell me, if you would what are the opportunities here for innovative financing? what if anything do we need to be doing legislatively to help facilitate that. >> thank you, senator coons. innovative finance is a big field. one of the most important things to do is get other countries to contribute as the chairman was mentioning and we're actively pushing on that all around the world. i would amend that. germany is number four. i got that wrong. innovate of it financing field has extraordinary opportunities. social impact bonds are working in nigeria. we're forcing matching as i mentioned.

they have 100 million-dollar gap to meet the bed net need. we'll give you 50 if and only if you cover the other 50. looks like they will float a bond, looks like they will float a bond in order to cover that $50 million. that is one opportune. the other is around high net worth individuals. as i mentioned we're actively pursuing high net worth individuals. we understand all accounts are constrained not just in the u.s. but all around the world we need private sector to do more. high net individuals with enormous wealth. we raised $100 million. that was working with bill gates and others but we see huge opportunity. not just the money. it is how we're going to use it. we're trying to build trust funds, public sector private sector trust funds that match public sector invests. this does three things. one, it puts more money in. secondly often high net individuals in a country like korea or china or vietnam are among the most influential people in the countries and they're worth billions of dollars. they are putting pressure on the government to increase their contribution because they're

putting in money too. and the third is around innovative implementation. they're saying if i put money in i want an efficient system. so get your efficiency up. work together on supply chain. work together on procurement. work together to bring the private sector practices. those types of innovative trust funds are huge opportunities for us as we are moving so countries are funding more and more of their own programs. there are many other opportunities around innovative finance we're exploring. countries are doing extraordinary things. senegal and kenya have some of the most, and tanzania, have some of the most innovative programs where they do special tax screams and bonds and funds internally to raise money within their own countries. that is a huge opportunity. thank you for raising it. >> i just visited senegal and kenya last month. as both sir elton john and reverend warren have shown the capacity of the private sector of charitable individuals to make a significant impact here

is impressive and we need to deploy further. dr. birx ambassador birx, as we saw in the response to ebola there were americans and folks around the world who stepped forward to make individual contributions in the hundreds of millions of dollars that also helped accelerate eu engagement, multilateral engagement but one of the other lessons of the ebola experience was pepfar resources and training were credited with nigeria being able to rapidly identify and contain the oneout break into nigeria of ebola. what are you doing what is the path forward for integrating pepfar investments into a investments into building broader health care systems to prepare for the next pandemic? and tell us a little more about the two programs, act program, accelerating children hiv a.i.d.s. treatment initiative. which you mentioned in passing but i would love to hear more about in the minute 1/2 we've got? >> great, thank you. so we have intentionally strengthened health systems

because without a health system that can provide commodities without a health system that can dying nose disease at laboratory level, without a health system without providers at the health center it wasn't going to be a functional system. it has been very deliberative and very much matched service we're providing a nurse at a health center all they providing hiv tests and referring patients she is treating all patients in the community. although they may be trained and provided by pepfar they're there for the community. we've seen in every other ebola outbreak that occurred in the drc, uganda, a rapid community response and a rapid medical and scientific response because of the infrastructure that has been built in the pepfar countries. indeed within nigeria the field epidemiologic trained individuals there for polio trained by pepfar but also

utilized in yo became the absolute core but underneath all of that you have a global health core that has been funded and built by pepfar around the world. thousands of individuals and countries who are part of the u.s. embassy, who are also deployed to these countries and were immediate rapid responders. on the continent you have highly trained health individuals and host country nationals and direct hire staff. act and dreams are have very exciting pieces. it illustrates when you effectively seek private sector engagement around a core program that private sector will stand forward. children's investment fund foundation coming forth with $50 million made it possible actually to achieve the goal of doubling the number of children reached by pepfar. only 24% of the individuals children under 15 in need of treatment are receiving treatment. this is really a key initiative. the dreams initiative which mark and i are working very closely

on really to empower young women to remain hiv-free, the statistics are overwhelming. 5% 10% 15%, 30% prevalence by 20 in areas of south africa. same thing repeated over and over again. this is a program that i have to tell you, when i said that this was high-risk and we were entering into unknown territory this is a program that we're relying on completely different approach, ground up planning, bringing everything to the table. from the social structure to the community structure to the family structure to the school structure. to really figure out what the most dissed a advantaged young women need in order to remain hiv-free. we have a lot of, what we call monitoring evaluation around it so we immediately tell what is working and transform it into other countries. thank you for those questions. >> thank you. i appreciate the very hard work you're doing with pepfar and you're doing with the global fund to make sure we have data,

we're doing analysis and delivering services more effectively i'm sure sir elton john's foundation better testing and integration at community level is vital. reverend warren community health training in rwanda has demonstrated we can do it effectively but we have to do it in more different ways, and sustainable ways if end of a.i.d.s. in our lifetime is to be achieved. thank you for your work. >> senator kirk. >> i prefer to call you colonel birx so everybody knows about your service to the united states medical corpse. when we first -- corps. i first met i will tell other members of the subcommittee we took the initiative in 1986 to start off starting of this program. i will say unfortunately senator leahy is not here. i think he was in leadership on senate foreign ops. story i will tell you as a staffer, i went to congressman bob morazic of new york.

we start ad 25 million-dollar earmark to start the global program in a.i.d.s. as it as called. the reason why we were leading to do that, is the the first diagnostic kit was produced by abbott labtoresries which i remind everybody is from illinois. and we got the results from abbott that they had they said in the central hospital they had zero positive rate that was very high according to the models. the epidemic had been going on for about 50 years. we got very brave bob to go into see dave obe chair of house foreign ops. he said something like those who worked with dave obe i will god, if i start foreign aid disease account with earmark. luckily dave changed his mind to his eternal credit. for a doctor dybul i see you success to my great partner this

work dr. jonathan mann who unfortunately we loss in the swissair crash with his wife. he told us the need to have the a multilateral and bilateral program. i want to just put before you guys pepfar started with bilateral roots and because of those old bilateral roots it doesn't really work massively enough in mexico. a country we should be concerned about. with its disease state i think that shows the advantage of the global fund to make sure that they're working in all countries of great concern. we see, i went to school in mexico. remember mexico -- [speaking spanish] so far from god and so near to the united states. that, we have a we have a long time historic problem of mexico taking direct foreign aid from united states and i would say

for mark, it is very important we have the flexibility the thing that, dr. mann said, he said, you got to start a bilateral program. don't work with w.h.o. africa. because nakijima's team is too corrupt. debra, you represent u.s. government accountable to congress and gao effective delivery. i would say to the committee never know what you're working on. this thing started as $25 million earmark. now it is 4 billion. i saw from the chairman's notes. we spent total of 57 billion on pepfar. now i sit back after this work 30 years ago thinking you guys are talking about how we have to remind the public the a.i.d.s. epidemic is still very much with us. that warms my heart to think of all the positive work, never in the history of mankind has one country given such an investment to health care.

internationally. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. that was a wonderful question. that was great. to the ten nothing grapher you will have your work cut out for you. very earth think committee we have here. well-done, mark, thank you for your years of involvement. senator shaheen. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you all very much for being here this morning and for the wonderful work that wonderful work you're doing around the world. ambassador birx, dr. dybul, i want to start with you all. i find statistic over80% of new hiv infections of adolescent in hardest hit countries by a.i.d.s. are young woman. talk about why that is. i think the dreams partnership is very exciting with nike and with the gates foundation. but can you speak to what the

solutions are as we think about how we prevent young woman from being affected? infected i guess i should say. ambassador birx, you want to go first. >> thank you. i think this level of statistics which nih really helped with because it was their clinical trials that were done for microbesides pointed out unrelenting incidence highest rate of new infections we've seen just about anywhere on the planet. 4% a year, 10% a year. and i think all of us together then, it started looking at this in a very detailed way. mark will also talk about how we've been working collectively because it will take a community and it will take a village. what puts young women at risk is a whole series of factors and one, if there was a silver bullet we would have already achieved it. so there are probably 10 15, things that have to be done together. what we're hoping is, a lot of

studies have done one thing. they have either done education. they have done cash transfer. they have done family strengthening. what we believe is that if you put it together as a combination prevention activity, like we're doing for many other parts of the hiv program, that it will become synergistic one plus one is now 10. that is what we need with the number of young women. south africa alone, three million more young women in that vulnerable age group than there was at the beginning of the epidemic. three million. so what you're saying is, that like some issues that affect women in developing countries that, the status of women in those societies is, contributes to the tremendous effect from a.i.d.s.? >> that is food way to put it. it. . .

similar to the chairman's about the impact of strategic impacts on investing in these efforts they are not just important to the health and welfare of people in these countries but they help us in america.

and i certainly agree with you about the influence of the specter. i wonder if you could talk about how we get the faith sector more involved in helping to educate and encourage americans to support foreign aid. you mentioned that many american people do not understand or support foreign aid because they think it is much greater in terms of the dollar amount than it is. how can we get the faith sector more involved? what do you see that is working in that way? >> well, i go back to this idea of assistance and aid being holistic. a lot of people don't really no what we do for me give money to other countries. they countries. they don't know what it is going for. in fact, usually about all we know is what we're we are

funded so many jets for country or so many you know, arms. that is what is in the paper you you don't here about what america does for other countries outside arming them. that is a big issue. one of the things that ambassador burke mentioned was having the right information. i have noticed that countries are hungry themselves for data collection. my travel to other countries i would advise us to fund data collection in other countries. that would be a wide use -- a wise use of american assistance dollars. without data collection you can have a national plan for aids reduction, malaria reduction, tb reduction, things like that. i would say that what we need is smart aid.

smart aid gives true accountability on both sides that the donors are accountable to do what we say we're going to do and the receivers are accountable on what they receive. smart aid has an alignment with national plan good accountability these data collection systems in place that the poor countries are not going to be able to afford. >> i am out of time, can i ask a follow-up? i think you are absolutely right about that. i guess can you talk a a little bit more about how we can give the faith sector more involved in helping americans understand why these efforts are so important? >> sen., it has been my experience that the faith community has been more willing to partner than the government. the government is more afraid of the faith sector than the faith sector is afraid of government.

and i think if somebody raised up the flag and said we are truly talking about partnerships, i have been been on the hell now often on for 20 years and i heard so much about partnerships with starting ever happens to somebody on my side takes initiative. if there were others who took initiative on the other two legs of the stool and even called some symposiums together how do we actually do this. business of healthcare what is church good at? distribution. in africa they say the pastor sleeps in the same blankets as a committee. i keep going back to rwanda. when the genocide hit and 94 every single ngo of the country's. who stayed? the for the church because

the church is the country. it is the country. most of most of the world you can't talk about community development without talking about the church. it is there. it is there. i think that they would step up to the plate instantly if there was a little love on the side. >> mr. chairman, i suggest that we try and work with reverend warren as we are thinking about how we make sure that we continue to fund our program. >> absolutely. how do you brand this program in a positive way? i have been thinking about that a lot. senator lankford. >> thank you, and thank all of you for being here for your words. let me finish out that conversation. have you seen effective outreach from government reaching out to the faith sector in particular countries that you have been around since that you have seen that connection with, the united states government or others.

>> i have i have found it quite easy to work with other governments. [laughter] they are not nearly as afraid of the church as the american government is. we work with governments literally all around the world command they are very friendly because they realize ran out trying to do there work. everyone has a different role to play. the church's role is not government. the government's role is not church. on health issues and on education issues and on development issues you can team tackle. tackle. i just found it easy to work with governments overseas. >> it is ironic that we have distributed around the world this concept of freedom of religion and disconnect between government faith and to say that government does not oppose faith afraid of faith and to be able to partner, that is an obvious area of partnering when you talk about a number of hospitals churches, and i

hear experts on the medical side say one of the key things we have to have is a distribution center in that location. how do we get that? we cannot be afraid to hear that there is an obvious connection. where we can and cannot connect let's do. it seems to be one of our greatest challenges of getting to these areas with a trusted relationship a trusted relationship to say this is a way to be able to deal with this disease or deal with this cultural issue and let us engage. i appreciate all that you are doing. let me shift a little bit. i am a little concerned the funding side hiv-aids 128 million for hhs aids and

hiv is at 451 billion for nih. how are we doing and coordination? talking to each other to make sure that everyone doesn't raise your hand and say there is a problem. is everyone doing their job? anyone who wants to jump in. >> interesting how you put together. you talked about our boss because we both were in tony's letter one-time. the way we the way we work with both the nih and the global fund and how we leverage. we work closely obviously. they both support scientific development and capacity development with us as well as key research. they are working on an hiv

vaccine and we are very excited about the progress. i think what was missing is the level of absolute working together at the global fund. over the last 18 months that has really transformed into an almost daily testing. we are testing. we are in constant communication, but we are in constant communication at every level. >> how did that happen? >> we committed to it. >> in part perhaps because i was out in the beginning. i was there soon after. part of the relationship. an evolution globally and in country. we have no and country presence. we are financing mechanism to my leverage mechanism to make sure people will come together to finance. we raise money. you put and call we put in 4 billion a year and raise

it from all sectors. and i have to say, you know, that the chairman's comments chairman's comments, without that leadership from the us it will unravel. it is the us that does it. at a country level we work as a partnership to bring the multilateral partners, the un institutions, other dollars with an country expertise to work collectively. so we have so we have to force ourselves together for impact and to get you value for money because we cannot achieve it any other way. >> there are obvious issues. we deal so much of the finance side. emergency funding for a bola , 2.7 billion. we send 3000 folks in that area to build 11 different a bola centers, and if i remember my numbers correctly we had 28 28 people we ended up treating with $2.7 billion. uncoordinated, too late, massive response, delayed.

we cannot have that in a disease like aids. we cannot not have coordination interaction, and make sure every dollar has been wisely did we did we do it in the most efficient way? time will tell us no. so i want to come back on that again. is there a structure and place? i am proud of his review they you are working on making sure there is communication. is there a structure in place? i hope you stay added. that would be terrific. building a structure to make sure is maintained. >> a structure at every level. part of part of it has to do with leadership and sending a signal clearly down that we will work together and we will work together not only in concert at the headquarters level and that

the implementation level but at the principal recipient level's. it makes the principal recipient sometimes nervous how close our dialogue is about what precisely is the global fund doing and what precisely they are doing. we can doing. we can line that up and marry that information absolute clear and transparent way. that is what is new. what the reverend talked about, data and data collection and transparency. that is what will ensure that there is no duplication because we now know down to the site level where his dollars are going and where our dollars are going. >> thank you. keep going. you are doing great work. we appreciate it. >> thank you. an excellent line of inquiry that we will follow up on. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your leadership on this issue this challenge, this world

challenge. there is a modest group of leaders who have had an impact on millions of lives. mr. chairman, you are one of those leaders. all of you on the panel are part of that group. a huge thanks to you. i think i think of others who have been part of this conversation who definitely laid out three pandemics in the world command we must take them on. the biggest leverage that we can have. to connect on economic development and on the need to address aids. you all absolutely are marvelous. sir elton john, as you spoke in poetic terms compassion and love and connection that was striking thing to

think about the parable the good samaritan story in which the individual goes on the road from jerusalem to jericho which was known as the blood road because it was so common for people to be robbed and beaten's. the priest comes by and sees the individual who has been robbed and keep going. the levites and in the samaritan. it was a samaritan is stopped and helped out. questioning jesus then proceeds to say who is your neighbor. this is what he told the story and then recognizes the one who reached out and had compassion and got involved when others did not thank you so much.

the piece of this puzzle that i would i would like to ask you to add some additional comments on his this challenge of stigma. back in the 70s first lady ford proceeded to after a mastectomy to talk about breast cancer in a way that open the conversation in america to something that was said no not talked about are explored. and in your work i am sure that you have connected with certain leaders who have changed the dynamic of stigma's in different countries are among different groups. can you give us some examples that we should try to find ways to encourage others to follow.

if anyone comes up transgender and, if people who are out there feeling alone and feeling that they are suffering because they have hiv gay or any other disease that they have someone else who they identify with comes out and says listen i have this and it's okay. it is an incredibly strong thing to do a necessity. not enough people who have hiv's a well-known have come out and said i'm hiv-positive. it would help so much more role models and famous people in africa they love sports.

there are many people in this world who are hiv in the famous and too scared to come out and say it. that's stigma will be lifted if only more people come out and say, say, listen i'm living with this disease, not dying with it. i'm fine. in any circumstance you know, you can say with angelina jolie, delmas ectomy. i don't want to. all helps people who look up to people. and especially with aids it is important for our people to say, listen i am hiv-positive. you don't have to be ashamed because it is a sexually oriented disease on the most part it is not something that people -- you don't

come back and say i have a terrible cough and stomachache. i have just come. i have aids. there is nothing no reason why you should not. because it is you know talked about a sexually transmitted disease if more people came out and said listen, hiv, it's okay. it would help so many. it will make a situation so much easier. >> if we extend that conversation to nations where the conversation is far more oppressed or underground and is your and dr. warren, you indicated you might have something to add to this and i would love to hear your thoughts. are there some spiritual leaders, some governmental leaders, some medical leaders who have taken stances to help change the course of policy and dialogue in countries?

>> whenever i find a pastor who has aids at the teller buddy zero, well maybe god can work in my life. most people know that 18 months ago by youngest son who struggle with mental illness take his life. open the floodgates because you don't help people with your strength. i think mental illness is a bigger stigma. more people are afraid.

it is not ascend to be sick. your illness is not your identity and your chemistry is not a character. so when leader stand up and say i'm struggling to major anything else, it allows other people to make progress. we help people more through our weaknesses that are strengths'. >> one of the great things in africa when i went about 12 years ago and i saw so many women had been widowed because their husbands had died sitting in the hospital at a roundtable with about 15 people the women were wearing t-shirts saying i have aids and been proud. that was the start of a movement where the women in south africa in that area relisted it is okay.

our weaknesses are our strengths. from a personal.of view i am terrible at asking for help. i would rather suffer in silence. it is okay to have a weakness. he hit the nail on the head. listen to my another strong as you think i am. it helps a lot. it really does does. >> thank you. that example shows the power of grassroots action. >> what an impressive panel or fantastic testimony. let me just just thank you for raising the issue of mental illness.

this is not something we tend to talk about a global terms. we tend to talk about communicable diseases primarily, but the reality is that the stigma is not domestic. it is international. the good news is that on this issue hopefully there is more bipartisan agreement working on a major rewrite. we we need to think about this globally and hopefully it becomes part of the conversation. senator lankford had an interesting line of testimony and inquiry. one of the things he talked about was the response to a bola. as the rest of us that there would be a million cases. so we had to be ready but we put a lot of work into our local partners everything from the right ways to quarantine to the safe practices for those that perished from the disease, and it was a lot of that work that made an

enormous amount of progress. i want to ask about this question of how we work with local governments to improve governance, improve their local public health systems so that ultimately we're not reliant on the generosity of the united states and the church community and the international philanthropic community. the reality is the reality is global surveys suggest one out of every five people in this world have actively paid a bribe to get a health service and 40 percent of people view there health care system as utterly corrupt. we know where those survey results are even higher. so how do our public health officials -- and i will ask how do we make sure that our public health dollars are intersecting with the other parts of money that we used to improve governance command are we doing out in the right way and with the

right level of coordination? >> i think the most important work is the last one, today. i 1, today. i don't think we were there five or seven years ago command we have always to go to the progress has been extraordinary. we find many governments directly. that has brought an enormous amount of accountability. i will never forget president gma. now it's results. you have to report the results down to the site level. investing heavily in data and data management systems. it is hard to steal money if you have to show results. much easier if you can just say i did some things. drilling down that accountability and data reporting down to the site level. layers and layers of investigative approaches' i

find a collectively and then we bring people to justice. and people are actually going to jail now for the 1st time for corruption in the health system. there is actually really exciting progress. these health programs, without talk that much to it has driven accountability in a way that never existed before. >> let me ask you a different version. we should care about corruption when our dollars on the ground but frankly just as much we should care what our dollars or not because we will need to use as much money if our systems are efficiently run. in those cases who is the right government entity to try to build the capacity. make it more accountable and

efficient. >> the great thing about what he just talked about is how that is integrated at the site of the state department and ambassador. the us government has ambassadors. being able to get him data's that takes the quality of the work at the site, site, the cost of delivering of services and integrates them into three ways and then compares all the other sites and all the other partners. you can clearly see what sites are out of range. it is costing more for low-quality product. to find those issues and an ambassador takes a forward that same system can be

taken in the countries where the us government is providing a 3rd a 3rd of the dollars through the global fund where there may not be a program. >> you were a little optimistic. how much does it matter local structure that is efficient relatively low on the corruption scale. i scale. i imagine you look very carefully at those factors when you are thinking about where to put your dollars. >> a a back to this holistic approach to aid and assistance in the peace plan promote reconciliation. servant leaders are ethical leaders because we believe corruption is one of the big five problems in the world.

so you have to deal with all of them at the same time. you can't just do a poverty. i found in working with local governments around the world the most important thing is to listen to not assume that i no what i know about the country. when i go in the country the 1st thing i do is take a yellow clipboard and sit there and listen to their culture, their values what they are saying. i'm not coming in imposing something. there is a verse in the bible this is when you go find the manatees find a man of peace.

one any questions yet. he just said be a fundamental piece. i found i found men of peace were muslims atheists, straight, gay's. those kind of people and start with a man of peace and you can begin to expand. i think it started listening >> i think that is a wonderful way to think about this. one of the points of trying to make when we look at the money that we spend in the benefits that accrue we should not just look at the accounts label global health when you are running programs that build in a peace the promote there ability to have influence, whether or not that is a health line item are not pay bills better local health systems.

as we are reviewing the budget is important to pay attention to the fact that sometimes the titles on the line items don't necessarily translate. >> thank you. thank you for participating. i think each of you in your own way. completely dedicated because i can see how close we are and the damage be done if we back off now. in a new cycle for bad news maybe we will get five seconds of good news from what you have had the safe. one thing i have learned is if we get any extra money we will go into data collection it's it's all of you, god bless. you represent the best in mankind. you will have a friend in this committee. this

committee stands in recess subject to call the chair. we chair. we keep the record of questions until the close of business friday may 15. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] is.

>> thank you. thank you so much. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> just go ahead and pose.

>> sounds good. host: coming up in

our last hour, we will head to fort ap help military base in virginia where pager will pick it up from here. host: the reason we are on this base, it is about an hour and a half south of washington dc. the reason we are here is a -- is it is the site of asymmetrical warfare training. complete with multilevel buildings, a subway, a train station, even underground tunnel . the purpose is to have u.s. troops develop skills needed to fight in urban conflict zones.

here to join us about the center and its mission is colonel john petkosek. he is the commander of the u.s. army asymmetric warfare group. thank you for joining us. guest: thank you for having me. host: can you tell us about these buildings behind us? guest: what i'd like to do is just put it into context in terms of why we have the training center here. the asymmetric warfare group provides operational advisory support for the army and joint force commanders. what that means is for things for the service here we provide operational advisers around the world where u.s. forces are deployed. we do that too identify capability gaps. we develop solutions for those gaps and then integrate them into the army system. that is what the facility is designed for. it is a place to develop solutions for the army. it serves a secondary role as an army training center. host: these buildings are life-sized in realistic, but

they are fake and a sense and used for training? guest: exactly. the army has always looked at the need to have a diverse place to train. in the past we had training areas that were simple concrete buildings but they did not provide the text sure that you need to get that our soldiers -- soldiers need today. the buildings of glass, windows, doors, all the things that a soldier would encounter. host: give us a feel of what we will find. this is an embassy behind us but we have some other structures as well. guest: what we do see is the place is designed to be able to change to adapt to whatever environment our soldiers might be in. there is a six story building out there that might be and never see one day and maybe a hotel on another and eight warehouse on another. we can change the settings to meet the kind of environment our soldiers are going to face. we are trying to provide a place

that can a variety of training areas so we get the most utility for it. host: you are going to see video of soldiers at a been here at the asymmetric warfare training center, running scenarios in these various types of buildings. you will see a lot of examples that we will get the kernel to talk about. we will talk more about the purpose of the center. the mission of the group. if you have questions about this kind of training that goes on, about the center, about how it is used worldwide, now's your chance to do so would john -- colonel john petkosek. here's how you can call. on the eastern and central time (202) 748-8000. in the central and pacific time zones you can call (202) 748-8001. other areas of the world can call (202) 748-8002. tell us a little about the places where once they are trained, where the soldiers go?

what kind of involvement are the and worldwide? guest: soldiers today are employed all over the world. when you look at with the u.s. army is doing and the u.s. military, we are doing different things. the recent ebola outbreak in africa. there were army soldiers helping beers we can nepal. -- earthquake in nepal. they can be anywhere around the world. the facility is designed for us to replicate the kind of environments we may face around the world. when you talked about the subterranean portion of it, that is a big thing. we have to look at something -- if they have to go in to a subterranean environment. the first time they are doing it should not be the first of a try to save a life. these are the types of equipment i need to the commerce these missions. it supports soldiers deployed all around the world. that is what it is built for and

it is tailorable so that we can replicate any environment. host: give some examples of recent training is gone in here and areas of the world where they have been involved?. guest: i think one of the best ones you talked about was the tunnels and subterranean pieces. what we realized early on is you see the environment around the world. sometimes you see continuity there. when we originally designed the facility, we were heavily engaged in afghanistan. at that time, the soldiers faced these water draining systems. they had to understand how to go down into those. how to fight in those things. it started out that way. only look at the subterranean threat in other places around the world with economic plight you look at -- where that can apply, you look at bunkers were chemical weapons i be stored in a country like syria where they took them out and destroyed

them. they have to be able to go and do that. this is a threat you might see anywhere around the world. host: in fact, we shot video of people in 1500 feet of tunnels. we have video of it of soldiers and training. that is what goes on here the asymmetric warfare training center. we are here to take your call and talk to colonel john petkosek, the commander of the asymmetric warfare group. the first call is from herbie in mississippi. go ahead. caller: good morning. these buildings look like united states buildings. the way the police are throwing back -- black people in the inner cities in the uprising here in america, it looks like we are getting to fight against her own people here. it looks like you guys are trading to invade the inner-city . it is mighty strange because everyone is training to do some

thing overseas. it does not look like overseas training. it looks like this is right here in america and that is kind of scary because of the situation where he can i get police locked up for what they are doing to civilians. and the stuff that is going on here in america. it is kind of damaging. you all are doing so they secretly here, i think. guest: herbie, that is not really true. what we are doing is training u.s. soldiers to operate in any contingency around the world. when you look at what the u.s. army soldiers do, they have to be able to operate from disaster relief to high-end military conflict. that is what the center is designed for. to be able to replicate any environment we might have to fight in. as we said, we are in virginia and that is where we live. we are stationed in the united states. the center is located here, so it is convenient and easy to

train on. really what you said is far from the truth. we want to be able to replicate any environment where our soldiers might be able to fight. as a said earlier, we used to train very rudimentary training facilities with simple concrete buildings and our soldiers were not prepared as well as they could of been by just adding a little bit of texture. this facility is designed to increase soldier survivability and save lives in combat. that is what it is for. i think if we put it in that context, that is what the u.s. army is doing with this facility. (202) 748-8000 for those of you in the eastern and central time zones. for mountain and pacific, (202) 748-8001. for active military, (202) 748-8002. our guest is colonel john petkosek. john from pennsylvania, you are up next. caller: hi. i am concerned like the last caller. i sell your facility on the

internet. i saw someone in john deere caps saying please is a my guns. i've seen your videotape. what safety, or what do we have to guarantee us that these training facilities are not being used to confiscate our guns in case of another economic meltdown like we had in 2008? like the gun confiscation that went on during katrina. u.s. troops in afghanistan walk the streets of new orleans and confiscated every gun that was there. what do we have to guarantee that we will be protected from that non-happening in mass like it did in katrina. thousands of guns were confiscated by regular army and national guard units. guest: i cannot speak about what happened in katrina, but i can

say i do know everything on the internet is not necessarily true as we see it. you come back to what the facility is designed for, we shared very openly. there are no secrets to be had. the united states constitution is what protects us and that is what the u.s. army is for, to support and defend the constitution. and i would hope that all of us -- our listeners and viewers out there would appreciate what our soldiers are doing for this on a day-to-day basis. it is the opposite of what you articulated. host: if the idea is to come up with solutions for situations across the world, how are the solutions? developed who comes up with the strategies? guest: when you talk about the subterranean piece, i think that is a great example. when they realized we had difficulty whether it was operating in afghanistan or in bunkers or how are your gun get into these places, what we were able to do is look at some the

historical samples -- examples in the past. the last on the u.s. army faced a threat like this was in the tunnels of vietnam. we looked at howard that our soldiers fight their. how do they fight in open our. -- open our --okinawa. we use the facility to build underground bunkers and realize if there is a metal door, how will we breach the door? once we do that, how will we get in there? what if we have to evacuate casualties? we develop material and nonmaterial solutions. a particular way to carry your kit. or we realized he might need a different kind of get to operate in an environment. how are you going to brief? one of their fire and smoke? how are you going to operate? that is one of the great things we do here. once we do that, what is really special about this particular organization and what we do for the army's we have the ability to take that we weren't and institutionalize it.

that is what we -- it is about. how quickly can the army learn. when we talk about what is special about the u.s. army, it is not about the tanks of the ships or the things that we have. it is the people. and our ability to adapt rapidly , more rapidly than our adversary is really what is special. i think this is a location where we can adapt quickly and you can see change happen right here. host: before we go too far in this topic of asymmetric warfare, defined what it is in english. it defines a change in nature as far of those that would use this type of warfare and can't -- conflict zones. guest: what i think about is there are two dissimilar forces. the way that they approach a fight with equipment they have. you don't attack an enemy's strength, you attack his weakness. the best way to articulate is the way world war i was fought.

that was asymmetric conflict. it was all about who of the most guns and him and hammy soldiers you can get on the ground. the armies were essentially the same and it was whoever could get there the fastest with the most. you had to similar forces clashing. at a point during that war summit he came over the idea and said what we put a machine gun under the cover of armor and we called it a tank. that is an asymmetric approach to try to overcome your adversary by attacking his weaker point. that would be able to attack with a tank. that is how warfare evolved. if you're going to succeed in conflict, you don't want to attack your enemies strength. when you going to a config like that anyone soldiers to survive and come home, you want to make sure it is not a fair fight in that u.s. soldiers are equipped as best they can and best repair for that type of conflict. host: our urban centers the new battleground? guest: when you look at what is

happening in the world today there is a huge population growth. you look at the growth of the megacities all of the world where there are millions of people in very close quarters. if conflict is going to occur in regions like that, we want our soldiers to be able to understand what they have to apply in those environments. you want to do it here in virginia the first time we call on her shoulder to have to figure out how you're going to get to the top of that five-story building with no elevator, no rope. host: lenny from arizona you are next. ahead. caller: good morning, colonel. i went to alert our citizens and get an excellent nation if we could for jade helm 15 which is all over the internet. it involves 10 states and there will be civilians participating in towns like big spring, texas. could you explain the magnitude of that and what the purpose that is? apparently they have

crisis actors in their enemy soldiers dressed in uniform and nonuniform. critics when it to us? thank you very much. guest: unfortunately it is not selling i am familiar with. i cannot really explain that. i do know that those type of things are things that we do here. we give our soldiers the opportunity to work in an environment where there are civilians and soldiers. one of the things i could talk about, unfortunately, i don't know about that particular exercise, but when you talk about soldiers operating in an environment with civilians one of the things were looking at here is a program of using autonomous robots. we take a number of robots that can operate independently and walk up and down the streets. we can dress them up and uniforms or a civilians and we can use it as a chance here to trainer soldiers how to discriminate between primitive

-- friendly forces and those that need to be evacuated. that is one of the great things we can do here at ap hill. host: tim in florida, your next. caller: good morning. i wanted to do differentiate the people between the politicians and the patriotic individuals like the kernel there. i am wondering when we are doing international foreign warfare -- urban warfare, where be going around the world and getting involved in international urban warfare? we are hated everywhere. people come here to do things i could do in texas. there is only one of you were that. why can't people mind their own business? i thought we were broken only have this ongoing military in parts of the country. a lot of the people i speak for, we support people in the military. we do not support people's

formulae these wacko policies by overthrowing the government of ukraine and putting in people who were not elected because there's trouble with russia and they are in the crimea and they are interfering with the u.s. starting problems in the middle east. thank you. guest: you bring up a good point. the world it has changed quite a bit in just a short time that i've been in the military. when i first came into the army what really drove the military strategy was something called airland battle. we had to win against an enemy. i was a lieutenant in the cold war was still going on. that was the war we faced. it was a math problem. we had have better tanks and aircraft and we had to be able to fight a force that we know in a very symmetric way. the world has changed. the army has changed with it.

the army has change their operating concept to say what we want our soldiers to be able to do now? that is fight in a conflict -- complex world were asymmetric threats are out there. this facility that you see here today is meant to replicate that so we can prepare our soldiers to do things where we might not know they're going to operate in the future. i really think that the facility itself here is designed to serve our army and help our soldiers face the challenges they are going to face in the future. we really do not know what that is going to be. it is a very, gated world of their and things have changed. we want our soldiers to be agile and adaptive leaders and soldiers so we can do, is what our nation asks host:. host:host: ford ap hill in virginia. 300 acres devoted to these buildings reaction you this morning. also, tunnels underneath and very structures on the campus.

justin from petaluma california. go ahead. guest:caller: i have to reflect what a lot of the colors have said today. this is just very scary stuff. this looks almost like american cities rather than being prepared for what we are going to face in other countries. as the colonel said, we have be prepared for this and all of that. this is almost almost -- every caller and i think everyone understands this is a very scary and new thing that the military looks like it is going to be taking on. they could be against its very own people. the american people.

everything i have seen except for the one mosque has been in english, main street. main street. host: but our guest respond. guest: what i would say is that it is a very, gated world out there and you should not find it scary or frightening. it is reassuring that we are fighting our soldiers to be able to operate across a broad spectrum of facilities. as i said, i have been in the army a little bit of time and we walked through the woods learning how to fight in the would like and how to navigate with a map and compass and areas like that. and then came to realize that when we were called by our nation to perform a mission, we were operating in an urban center. and how we did that, whether it was us helping soldiers operating in the current conflicts that we must recently operated in, all of those were it in an urban environment.

we had to learn how to operate in and among were people are. the u.s. military as we operate across the world, there are enemy forces and they makes themselves and with family forces all the time. the robot example i gave. we need to be able to have her soldiers discriminate between what is friendly and what is enemy. when i was growing up in the army, one of the things he used to say about our soldiers is no soldier is doing the right thing when they do the right thing when nobody is watching them. our soldiers are disciplined in doing the right thing. as the world changed, we have to build ask her soldiers to do the right thing when the whole world is watching because there are a lot of things out there on the internet. whatever we do is going to be out there and broadcast. we don't have any secrets to hide. this is a great opportunity for us to showcase what are people

-- our soldiers are doing for the iraqi people. -- american people. host: you do have a church in a mosque. what are the relevance of the structures? guest: it could be a church today and a town hall tomorrow in a store the next day. what is important about the environment as we replicated, we wonder soldiers to be sensitive to the fact that all these things are going to be encountered when they are out operating around the world. we all know the media reports of soldiers causing harm to our cause by being insensitive to those things. i haven't is located here, we can sensitizer soldiers to the fact that you will be operating around places that are since -- sensitive. that is the kind of thing people will be emotional about how we want them comfortable operating in an environment here in virginia because for they go forward. -- before they go forward. an earlier commander of the

group used to say you have to become double being uncomfortable. -- the comfortable being uncomfortable. we have to not only become double in these -- and be comparable in these situations, our soldiers have to be able to thrive. that is what we are doing here at fort ap hill. we are providing all these cues that'll make them think because that is what we want our soldiers today. our motto is think, adapt, and participate. that is what we want our soldiers to do in virginia before they go into harms way. host: you are hearing from colonel john petkosek, talking about this training center and asymmetric warfare. next is vincent in dayton, ohio. go ahead. caller: sir, my question is for the national guard units and

domestic law enforcement authorities also using the center for their training. guest: vincent, all different types of units use this facility. it is a national asset, a military asset. it is used all different times. even this afternoon it will be used by a unit coming in as a law enforcement unit to understand how to operate in these environments. it is not just the army. it is the joint force. we use this facility by the army navy, air force, marines, other government agencies use it, and they use it to come here so they can train to do what we're going to ask them to do, wherever that might be around the world. it is used by a number of organizations and all of those organizations are able to benefit from the investment that the american people made here in virginia. that is what we are trying to do here.

we built this facility and it is great. it is one of those places where you can broaden the possibilities for training the things we might not even have thought of. that is what we are trying to achieve here. sometimes we learn from our partners in that respect. we might work with other organizations that say here is a way that you can go down into a tunnel and be able to brief that we might not have explored. this is one of those places where we can share information. host: are there international partners a coming train? guest: they have come here periodically. for example, one of the things we might do is typically what we do in the asymmetric warfare group is we work by, with, and through other u.s. organizations. we might not necessarily work with foreign forces, but other elements do. one of the things we look at his what soldiers, upon a facility and it might be an ied making

facility or a lab are one of those kind of facilities, we replicate them here. a can see it firsthand here before they are faced with that in reality. it comes to mind because one of our recent partners here as we've been working with is the mexicans. they have come to look at the facility to differentiate between a drug lab and in ied lab. if you break this glass jar and some kind of gas comes out and it injures either soldiers a law enforcement, that is the kind of think we want them to do here before their face with that challenge real-life. host: susan from arizona, good morning. caller: it is so nice to hear you. colonel, i want to thank you. i want to thank you and all the military. because if anything ever happens

to the united states, i hope to god that you guys are standing next to us to protect me and my family. for the last seven years i feel i have not been safe here in the united states. me and a whole bunch of people. i want to thank you. keep doing what you are doing here train those military is because when they will need them to save us. so thank you and god bless you. guest: thank you, susan. i really appreciate that. i thank you for this opportunity because the chance for us to showcase what our soldiers are doing for the nation is really our obligation. there is not a lot of chances where we get to interact with the people we come from. the soldiers that are here from every state in the nation and it is us. we are a reflection of our society. and a chance for us to highlight

what great things are soldiers are doing for our nation and around the world, it is always a pleasure. i do for your call. host: rebecca from virginia, go ahead. guest: thank you so much for all that you all are doing and the soldiers that are training their and are deployed. i know you work hard everyday to prepare them and thank her that. how long does it typically take a unit to stay there and be trained before they are deployed or send out into the field? guest: rebecca, it really depends on the unit and the mission they are being called on to do. i cannot answer that specifically. units that rotate through here typically are here for short periods of time. it's not a place where stations are -- place where soldiers are stationed. when i was younger i was stationed at fort drum, new york. we came down to forta ap hill to train for several weeks.

as i reflect back on this, it was a couple of years before this was built. i would've been able to really benefit from these facilities. typically it is a couple of weeks that soldiers, go here to train. --, and go here to train. it typically takes about a two-week amount of time is help our soldiers become agile and adaptive. a lot of people talk about when you look at soldiers and what you want them to be and how you want unveiled to react? you want them to be confident responsible, trustworthy. all those intangible things that you wanted soldiers and good citizens. those things are hard to train. if you ask someone how to make them responsible and adaptable that is a huge part of our effort here. we bring them through and pedro saw some of our soldiers training. we build scenarios to challenge our soldiers and put them in the uncomfortable situations so they

can make the right decisions. as i said, we send our soldiers around the world and everyone is watching. we want them to make the right decisions. host: (202) 748-8000 for the eastern and central time zone. (202) 748-8001 for mountain and pacific. and for active military if you want to give her thoughts as well, (202) 748-8002. we have showed you the buildings and some of the scenarios they go on here at the asymmetric warfare training center. one of the things we got to expense was some of the shooting skills training that the soldiers receive. we had a chance to talk with a lieutenant colonel about the weapons training and white is important. >> what you see is individual soldiers from asymmetric warfare group preparing to occupy the range and do some training. what they're going to do specifically is put on some protective masks, like gas masks

, and they will do marksmanship training up to about 50 meters in the near future. that is the focus for this morning's event. in the recent past, they've done some other trainings with pistols and rifles. host: why is this site -- type of skills many important? quacks we are by -- >> we go out and advise army and joint force units around the world. some of those areas are conflict zones like iraq and afghanistan. it is important that your skills, your combat skills defensive or offensive are well honed. it is part of any units preparation for this kind of eventualities. we happen to focus on the pistol and rifle marksmanship more than probably your average unit because we do not know what sort of situation our divisors -- our

divisors are going to encounter especially when embedded with other units. host: again, that was lieutenant colonel justin sapp. regina from virginia, you are on with colonel john petkosek. caller: good morning, sir. i would like to know how this urban training conflicts with the posse, taught us act. i will take my answer out there. guest: thank you very much for your call. it does not conflict with the posse cometatus act. the army does not engage in law enforcement activities. we do operate in environments where there are civil years and soldiers operating together.

to answer your question directly, it does not. but it really does is provide us with an opportunity to become accustomed to operating in areas where civilians and from these are operating. it's a makes them able to better perform their mission. as a justin sapp talked about there is a number of basic skills that we want our soldiers to be able to do. we want them to able to shoot and hit a target. they want them to be able to maneuver in environments. those are the essentials of any military operation. when you overlay that on top of the complex world we live in, we want our soldiers to be able to operate and decide it is not whether you're going to hit the target, it is whether you should shoot or not shoot. the able to make decisions rapidly in a complex environment. that is what we are trying to achieve. host: you talked about civilian and military together. one of the replicas here is a metro station. why is it important to have that and how do you account for

civilian -- dealing with civilians in the sky situations? guest: our soldiers have to be able to operate in all kinds of environments. what you saw it on their looks like a metro station and we've used it in the past for other things. we blow a better cars and of role in a flatbed railcar and it is a hidden gun that are said -- our soldiers a going to go after. the next a we put tanks on it and chemical weapons that are soldiers what to go after. we are able to tailor it to the mission set we're going to face. when you look at underground rail systems, those are probably in most major cities today. i cannot think of another place where i can train where i would have the opportunity to understand what would happen if i encountered a facility like that. what decisions to we want our soldiers to make? when you good on their and you turn off the lights and it's filled with smoke and you're trying to recover somewhat that might be injured or trying to fight her

through it, let us do that here at fort ap hill and provider soldiers with that kind of complex environment for they have to do it elsewhere. host: rhonda for massachusetts. caller: thank you. i came across police officers training of a closed store at the mall. my question is what terminologies like one world government and the patriot act being in place and barack o is using the rustic terrorism, is there a time this asymmetrical army can be used in the united states against the people? guest: the short answer is no. there is not an asymmetrical army per se. you see training in a facility where they have to close off a mall so they can train and what are they going to do if they have to react to an incident by

what happened in kenya just a short time ago. instead of shutting down the mall for law-enforcement to train on those things, what you ring them here or they can replicated here and exley get those techniques down so we can do what we are going to ask them to do without being annexed or imposition on the environment we live in. when you talk about the metro station, that is another great example. we have a commute to work each day. i would be pretty disappointed if the measure was not working on time because someone else was training there. we can do the kind of thing here and not inconvenience our day-to-day lives. host: talking about training taking place in international areas, is there and it's -- a plan for if an incident happens in the united states? guest: one of the missions of the national guard is to react in case of a national emergency.

if there was an emergency but we had have soldier sent in to provide relief as they have a numerous occasions when number of floods or hurricanes, this is the kind of thing they could do. they could get an opportunity to do this kind of tasks. i know with the recent hurricane we had a few years ago in new york, there were metro stations that were flooded. is the be the kind of place for you can figure out those techniques if the military is a recalled on. you want to make sure they are ready to perform this missions. the army does not have a lot of luxury when we are called on. we are expected to be there and be ready to do whatever we are asked to do. if the army is called on to help but in a situation, one would not effect is to be ready to's -- disable be ready in a few weeks. now, when the american people: the military to perform a mission we expect them to be ready. we are able to look at some of

these unconventional things that we might ask our soldiers to do and make them ready for this. host: david from texas. caller: i am retired military. and the late 80's we did some training at fort hood at some all caps stations. me being an armored crew member and thank you matter, it helped our troops to actually learn how to fight in urban warfare so when we went overseas we do it to do. everybody knew they had to do. as a tanker, you never get off your tankless you have to. now if something cap us your vehicle if you're on foot you know what to do to help out the infantry or the medics or whoever to survive. and the training itself is worth it. all of our soldiers and airmen and marine corps need to go to some kind of training like this because they need when they go overseas. guest: i really appreciate that

comment. i myself served in a number of types of units. a few years ago when everyone -- everyone is familiar with the battle falluja, and i participated. you talked about armored vehicles operating in an urban environment, that was not something we trained on when i was training at before going to iraq. we trained on large ranges in germany. we looked at how we were going to engage enemy tanks and 2000 meters. but when we were called upon to do it in before moving on the streets of falluja with m1 tanks and engaging the enemy at close range, i wish i would've had that kind of training before we were called to do live in combat. host: the asymmetric warfare group had a start dealing with ied's, is that correct? guest: as a conflict evolved about 10 years ago the enemy engaged us and an ace magic

weight. they used -- asymmetric ways. these improvised explosive device is and they were a threats to our light-skinned vehicles. born of that was the asymmetric warfare group. what we were charted with doing was let's look at these threats identify these gaps before we face them so we can be prepared for them beforehand. exactly as you talked about, the world is changed in the last 10 years since before the -- when you look at what weird seeing on television. these small, unmanned aerial systems. you see these quad copters and our member during the super bowl that put out a thing that said no quad copters. everyone is flying them around. we see them all over the world. even in washington dc, you see them landing an unexpected areas. this is an asymmetric threat.

that is one of the missions of the asymmetric warfare group. we look at this and say how can we use this? how can the enemy uses? -- use this? we can prepare our soldiers how to react to that. this is one of those places we have done that. in just a very short time ago at this very train center, we would run a platoon through this area and bring in this small little quad copters and see how they react to them. then we could say if you're encountered with that threat how should you deal with it? haddie stop it? what you watching? we develop the tactics techniques, and procedures to counter the smart -- counter these emerging threats. host: john in buffalo. caller: let us not get ourselves. this country is never again

going to send its troops into mass urban warfare. that is all gone. if we get into a situation where someone is going to ask us to take out a whole city of people or a bunch of terrorists, we are going to lighted up or new from. --nuke them. this facility is to train soldiers to frighten americans an urban cities. it is coming. 25 years ago -- host: what convinces you of that? caller: let me finish please. after they dropped the wall, i went into poland and i was appalled to find that people were required to carry identification with them at all times and let the government know where they were. i was appalled at that being an american citizen. that was 25 years ago. the other thing, one less comment, i live in buffalo, new york.

i see in south buffalo there is a large military storage center that has suddenly popped up just off the highway where there is all kinds of military equipment being stored there for some reason. i cannot imagine why. i will take your comment off the year. host: colonel? guest: john, you really cannot predict what the future is going to do. to say we are never going to do anything in the future in terms of the army would be shortsighted. when you talk about urban fighting, fighting an urban area, we talked vietnam in the battle of way city, that was a huge fight. they said there is a lot going on there and to say that we will never do it again was not correct. we as soldiers do not know what the future will hold in we cannot predict it. but to say we are not going to fight in a particular way, well

our enemy has a vote in that. they will determine how we fight in the future. we cannot exclude any possibilities. as an army we have to be prepared for those possibilities. as a seven the previous color, i have been called on to do a lot of things i never thought i would have to do in the military. you always think about how could you have better prepared for that with time and facilities. that is what we are trying to achieve here. provide our soldiers the best chances of not only surviving, but thriving in combat. everything we do at this location is designed to increase our soldier survivability. i have no idea what the future is going to hold and we spent a lot of time talking about what the threat could be. as soon as you decide what the threat could be will never fight , and an asymmetric warfare way our enemy will say the u.s. is not prepared for that and that is where we need to draw the men. we need to be prepared for a

broad spectrum of operations and that is what we are trying to do. host: we've heard a lot of people interesting concern. is there concern about the training you do here, do you think? guest: when people see what is available in the media, the media is much more open in terms of what is available on the internet and in print and tv media. there are a lot of different opinions out there. you will feel a larger, broader scope of opinions. some people might gravitate to a certain opinion that might suit their preconceived notions. an interview like this is important because we're opening up to not only to the united states, but the world to say this is what we have here. there is nothing to hide. we are trying to say here are the american soldiers, your soldiers. these are the soldiers that are charted with protecting and defending united states of america. they are fantastic.

any chance we get to highlight what they are doing, where their training, we want to share that we reckon people. host: stephen from connecticut, go ahead. caller: first, they would have to sign up for pta. this asymmetrical warfare -- we have vladimir putin over there marching across crimea, georgia chechnya. he wants poland. he wants estonia. he was lucky a. -- lot via. --latvia. we have to get all of our friends from nato -- how do we bleed his army? these kooky

callers, i would love to have the u.s. army in my town. build a basic connecticut. thank you. host: thank you for your call and your confidence in our soldiers. that is something we are try to share here. you bring up an interesting point when you talk about the complex things that are going on in the world. you brought up a specific scenario. what we tried to do at the asymmetric warfare training center is not look so much at the who of what is going on, but the what that is going on. we look at the techniques being employed and we may see a different kind of warfare that is being waged in a particular scenario. maybe that is the type of scenario where soldiers are in combat and they are not wearing a uniform. or there is a cyber component or an electronic warfare component. we are able to look across the world and say we solve this in this area. we see it also played in this area and this area. how do we develop tactics

techniques, and procedures to operate in a kind of environment. you talked about some great points to talk about the nature of warfare and how it is changed. that is what we charge our soldier city. i relish the old days where i knew what else can be called on to do. i would get in my tank or armored personnel carrier and face an enemy to kill him before he killed me. but now the world has changed and operating in a complex environment. our soldiers have to be prepared to do numerous missions. i would hope you find confidence to say that there is someone looking out at what is going on in the world today and preparing her soldiers for the unknown. host: george from conroe, texas. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. first, i want to thank colonel petkosek for his service. there are three things i've been hearing here and seeing here

that impressed me very much. the first is that citizens are asking questions. the second is colonel petkosek's first responses questions is that his loyalty is to the constitution of united states and that is what circumscribes his actions. the third thing is that in this world today, we cannot afford to ignore the fact that we may be forced to fight on our own soil. if that were to occur i, from what i am seeing, i am quite certain that colonel petkosek and his men will be able to handle that situation completely within the law and the laws of our country and with the intent that the constitution intended. i would want to thank you for your kind servicing your call. guest: i really do appreciate your call and your comment. it is always -- awe-inspiring to

see what our soldiers are doing. any chance we get to share that with the american people is really a great opportunity. the country is large and soldiers are spread across it at different bases. he do not get a chance to see what your soldiers are doing. anytime we have an opportunity to highlight for the american people that this is your army your military, it is something you should be proud of and you can rest assured that you have the right people doing the right things for our nation. it is always a good thing. thank you. host: mike from alabama. caller: colonel, i would to congratulate you and your facility there. it is remarkable. it is obviously state-of-the-art. my son just left the active army after three tours in iraq and one in afghanistan. i want to say i am with you and

plato who says, only the dead have seen the end of war. i think we do hearing in the voices the people that call you today is the suspicion that the national command authority is in the hand of domestic enemies of the constitution. what do you do when faced with an unconstitutional order? guest: we have an obligation to support and defend the constitution of united states. fortunately i have not had to face that moral dilemma and say what choice do i make between some order and the parameters that are outlined by the constitution. again, i raise my hand and said i would support and defend the constitution. that is what i am charge to do. as you talked about, that is what our soldier sign up for. i'm glad to hear that you had a son that served and you should be very proud that he made the choice and raised his hand just

as i did to do exact for that. i am sure that he could tell you that a lot of the things that even discussed of this program today maybe falls perceptive's -- perceptions about what we are here to do. that's why take the opportunity to share with you and the american people that this is what the army is here for. nothing has changed. this is the same army. united state's army existed before there was a united states of america. it is the oldest institution we have in terms of our nation. we've been doing the same thing for 200 plus years. the nature of what the army does for the wrecking people has not changed and it has only become stronger. host: cape coral, florida. go ahead. guest: i would like to ask the kernel if you would care to comment on operation j helm -- jade help m 2015 and an operation

going on in canada right now. i was also wondering about -- host: i'm sorry. guest: the first exercise i'm unfamiliar with. but i am familiar with the maple exercise in canada. that is one of those great opportunities and i don't know the details of the exercise and what they are trying to accomplish. i cannot speak intelligently about that but it is an opportunity for us to work with our partners, specifically our canadian partners. that is important to us as an army. we all see what is going on in the world today. different army said different experiences. we are looking for it asked packages. we are looking for if working with the canadians reveal something that says that is a great way to do that. what we do have that and the u.s. army? that is what began from working with our partners.

i cannot speak intelligently about the nature of it, but i know we are working with them to identify best practices. host: how do you know if what you are doing a successful? guest: that is the difficult part. how many lives doesn't say for how does it work. getting ahead of the thread is really the hardest part of it. we note it is successful when the go forward. we have soldiers and we asked them to do a lot of things here at when we see the soldiers and say i was at fort ap hill, and we did some adaptability training or we were in the tunnels and i prepare me for my mission, that is how we measure success. when we get feedback that says what you are doing is important. everybody wants to feel that what they're doing has value and is important. particularly our soldiers in the u.s. army. they sacrifice a lot. they spent sometimes and some hostile conditions and they want to know it makes a difference.

and it makes a difference when you know you are helping soldiers on the battlefield. you're helping make soldiers better prepare for their mission. ultimately, there are some son daughter, wife, husband of a gun safe because of the things you did at fort ap hill. host: colonel john petkosek is commander of the asymmetric warfare group. thank you for your time. guest: we also want to thank fort ap hill for hosting us. the video work -- we want to thank them as well. that is it for "washington