yes. he is working and he is trying to make a change and we are committed to help him. keep promising without implementation we will come again as a country. i don't need to come again. i hope the final picture presented would come later on. but none partisan security forces can be done nationwide by iraqis supported by americans. programming, training, equipment. time is important because we cannot have more time on the militia side. i am really sorry i didn't mention that simply because there's a humanitarian. i am sure as was discussed

yesterday in the topics they cover. help me not focus on it. on the militia side there are pro-iranian militia sides. i can't say the division of iraqis and mobilization. i agree with you. definitely under the popular mobilization, some of the militia and we are talking about dismantling the criminal ones, committing crimes. they can be accepted as part of the national guard but my suggestion is on a personal level with dozens of people who belong to one of the regions to be integrated and find in army or national guard. so we can get benefit of some of the shia who were fighting definite way.

this brings me back to the story. if our share of the government has not been in iraq. this is only one. we are talking about 1200 something generals in iraq. we have over 1000. that is .001 you can see the problem. yes iraq is complicated and you will see it is democratic. is it really a solution? yes, there is a solution. there is an option. but there is much work to be done. thank you very much. >> governor, please. >> first come i want to talk

about the distance between militia and the democratization. it is not the same of course. it is just the people who are just people and we know it is a good guys and they want to protect you. but the militia inside were organized equipped from outside iraq. and of course we see that. there's people who are not organized in one group who is organized and they look at by the web is -- in true as soon as the program between this militia and the sunni provinces and

stopped even by this militia to overcome, it is all stopped and the problems will appear between inside their militia and inside the shia provinces. even prime minister abadi will face the problem and the target between that militia will be more than with the sunni after that. we are not going outside the constitution, outside the law. we are not going. we are going for more problems. of course now there are problems come up in the future will be shia problems. i think when i'm talking about

the constitution, that means we need the constitution. given more minorities when we are talking about luck but they are big minorities. for example it would need more than 10% of the autonomy or the province. the inside of the constitution we need to have negotiation with them for now and to put their lives or at their minorities. so that will be in the step of creating a good idolatry even

superman. and now even if he didn't have it, so how he will fight -- talking about one person means nothing. we need to know what they look at him. because of the divisions to be in the commander to fight or not. so i didn't follow the names. i want to see until now i can see all the world israel and actual steps done within it

there. between the central government force and also there's more than 200 lawmakers and there is no division or no army i'm not five. so it is just about 20 kilometers away from mosul and we believe it will be from baghdad. about the democracy in iraq, the problem in the law of the elections. yes, there is a democracy, but what happened is they give the already to the big list not to the people and that happened from the beginning after 2003. set those people who are those

guys who are unfurling the authority from after 2003 can offer their people and until now there is no representative to the people of the parliament. we know there is a representative to the list in the parliament and of course we can prevent some parties and accept the others. >> one last word. >> dismantling the militia will definitely and in an iraqi army that is fair with america to defeat an existing non-proliferation of the militia with only 10 iranian revolutionary guard model. thank you.

>> obviously, this is not going to be the last word on the subject. i think our speakers today have given you a commend this idea and the problems of iraq today and the potential for the solutions in the future. please join me in thanking masoud barzani and rafe al-issawi. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> on to remarks by the iraqi and kurdistan, masoud barzani putting humanitarian efforts for refugees, the energy sector in relations with the u.s.

it is hosted by the council on foreign relations. the [inaudible conversations] >> at afternoon, everyone. i'm from the washington bureau chief of "the wall street journal." as you all know, our very special guest today is masoud barzani president of the kurdistan region of iraq and it's a pleasure and honor to have you with us at the count, mr. president. equally important is the presence of the foreign minister of the krg and crucially will serve as our interpreter today so that we can make this conversation have been in a meaningful and substantive way. thank you for joining us. we appreciate it very much. mr. president, i would start by

asking you if you want to talk for a couple of minutes, if you have something to say at the outset anything else you want to cover another luncheon to ask questions. we are speaking on the record today. we have a conversation at 1:00. i will open the floor to your questions and will help microphones to go around at that point and i very much look forward to having all be having all to join in the conversation as well. mr. president, the floor is yours. [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: i would like to thank you. it's a pleasure to meet some friends in this audience. [speaking in native tongue]

>> our visit to washington came at the invitation of the white house. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: we are here in order to communicate and purvey our thanks to the president, vice president of the american administration and the people of united states for the support they have provided when we were faced with the terrors of isis. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: as you know it is figure that has been a tough and difficult fight with the most brutal organization of the day.

[speaking in native tongue] >> translator: so far come as a result of this, we have given huge sacrifices of 1200 peshmerga bartered, 1700 have been murdered. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: at the beginning we had great difficulties. immediately we were able to take full control of the situation and to liberate the area. we have been able so far to clear and liberate an area of 20,000 square kilometers that the peshmerga have full control at the initiative in their hands. [speaking in native tongue]

[speaking in native tongue] the so-called administration are almost in the hands of the peshmerga today. [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: we are ready to go back to the will of the people and the constitution to go about to the will of the people and for the people to make the final decision adventurous, what do they want to be and decide their future. we are committed to that and we are committed to respect the will of the choice of the population in these areas. [speaking in native tongue]

>> translator: and the loss suffered by isis will be information that we share also with general often that they have lost 11,000 of their members. those who have been killed in our front lines, those who have been killed by peshmerga forces or those who have been targeted by the airstrikes. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: i would also like to share with you that the ordination of the cooperation between our forces commit the u.s. forces and coalition partners have been excellent and the civilians have been targeted throughout all of these cooperations. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: certainly if that were not for the united

states it would've also been much more and at the same time at the peshmerga had the necessary needed weapons bay lessons would have been much less. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: isis is not a new organization. it is an extension of al qaeda. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: al qaeda relied on those threats at the chi hotties to feed the trend. isis benefited plus the air of chauvinism with all its actions. [speaking in native tongue]

>> translator: isis would not have been able to achieve all that it has achieved. as an example, they were able to acquire 1700 as a result of their own policies of the former prime minister in the former cabinet which paves the way for isis to take full control. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: so the frontline that we have with isis in iraqi kurdistan is 1050 kilometers in the frontline, which is 1500 kilometers. [speaking in native tongue]

>> translator: and as a source of pride for the people of kurdistan, for the peshmerga were able to destroy the image of isis and the invisible force. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: and also, we believe we are defending some common values. dyson principles the free world policeman and cherish and we defend the style used. [speaking in native tongue]

[speaking in native tongue] >> translator: in addition to the cost of war the burden of war and sustaining the war, we are under huge pressure economically for providing refuge in sanctuaries to the rest of iraq and the refugees in syria. altogether is 1.5 million come a quarter of a million or 250,000 of them from syria or different parts of iraq. they all have found refuge in kurdistan and we did provide them with the services we could. we will continue to do so but they are these to be an expectation in the capability and capacity of the krg.

[speaking in native tongue] transcode the relationship today is much better than i was with the previous cabinet and we are working in order to find solutions to the problems that we face. the [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: finally i would like to say that we are delighted and pleased with our visit and we are successful with it. we found out that there is a very good understanding of the question of the issues that the kurds people and we have been given assurances that the peshmerga will get the weapons

and the requirements. >> mr. president, thank you for that overview. let me start with a final thought. he said in your comments just now that the battle against isis would be easier if the peshmerga had the necessary weapons. what assurances did you get specifically while you were here they you will get the weapons you need and specifically what they lack right now that you would like to see in the hands of your fighters. the [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: [speaking in native tongue]

>> translator: if we go back to the history of the issue, going back to the time of 2007 general dempsey was in charge of u.s. forces in iraq, there was the peshmerga forces would get their share for what ever the army gets. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: but neither we did not receive a bullet nor a weapon. the [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: the peshmerga had old and outdated weapons that we captured in the regime against other fights. the [speaking in native tongue]

>> translator: indeed, we discussed this issue with the administration, the details of this issue and they assured us that this will not be repeated again and we were given was that they would be follow up on that. before now we did not get such assurance, therefore we are pleased at that level assurances have been given. >> to be specific about your conversations here, do you leave washington confident that the president, the vice president, the vice president, secretary of state will make sure that those assurances are followed through? >> translator: [speaking in native tongue]

>> translator: we go back with full confidence and great hope. >> women talk more about your relationship in bad data finite. i'm curious about the status of the december agreement. the questions that were to be resolved in that agreement particularly with regards to the sale of oil. what is the progress in implementing the agreement? are you satisfied or are there things that need to be worked on? [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue]

[speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: as far as the agreement is concerned, the krg is required to provide the federal government in baghdad 17% share of the krg as is in the iraqi budget for 2015. in april the krg provided and exported even more cumin may be

more than what is required to, but according to the news i have, baghdad has not honored the agreement to provide krg with a 17% share. in deed, less than the amount of oil krg has given to be sold. we will follow up on that. >> in on that point, i assume you raise that with officials at the obama administration here appeared to have their assistance in making sure you get what the december agreement says the kurdish government is supposed to receive? [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: before now and

now, they have been trying seriously in order to encourage baghdad and in order to stay committed to the agreement to be implemented. >> there is coming and important site for mosul. what role do you think the peshmerga forces will play and not enterprise? [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue]

[speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] ..

>> one of the other factors that change in original political structure in recent weeks has been the emergence of the p5+1 agreement with iran on its nuclear program. how do you think that agreement if it's executed, changes the regional political structure? and how specifically do you think it affects your part of the role the kurdistan section?

[speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: i believe that will have impact on the entire region, the wider regional, not only on kurdistan region, but if the issue could be solved through understand and dialogue, that will be able to help the

reduction of reducing the tensions that exist in the area. >> i would you describe the extent iran influence on the government of by -- baghdad now particularly the new government? [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: i believe this is a given fact that today iran has more influence on the ground than any other country in iraq. >> is that inevitable or is that something that could be changed by an american policy, but an alignment within iraq itself? [speaking in native tongue]

>> translator: i believe in any country come any given country would be important for the people of that country to decide what kind of policy do they want and have to decide for the own. but with the training able to do it the people of the country we could declare a war or what? >> well, one of the questions that inevitably follows you into the question of kurdish autonomy, kurdish independence. what is your own thinking about the path forward on the question of kurdish autonomy? [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: of course right

now the priority for all of us deciding i succumbed to continue to push them out and away from all areas. but the process to take place for the people of kurdistan to determine the future for the people of kurdistan to exercise the rights of the nation is a process that i started it will not stop as we will not stop -- will not step back from that process. we will continue the path. >> mr. president, let me ask you one final question of my own and then i will open it up to the audience your when you step back from the fight against isis, i'm just wondering as we speak here today go is isis being defeated or is it not being defeated?

[speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: well, of course fighting isis -- [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: fighting isis should not be confined only to

military aggression the sba military fight, and ideological and intellectual fight, economic pie, a logistics, et cetera. therefore, it's the responsible enemy in international can do not to take part in that and honestly and faithfully to fight the. they would not be good and would not be an interest of stability of the region any quarter would like or try to use isis as a pressure on the other. as far as our frontline is concerned i get a we been able to give, to make sure that isis suffered great losses but still stakeholders, they pose a threat to us. at the same time prices have to be dealt with in both syria and iraq to be taken in both places. we can't target them in one place completely other area free area or movement for isis. >> mr. president, thank you for that. let me ask you for your question. if you measure and a couple of requests. wait until i call upon you. please wait for the microphone

and also state your name and your affiliation and will have a lot of question so please keep them concise. i will start right there and go there next. >> welcome to washington. the question is can you defeat daesh in the anbar province by the support of the sunni tribes? and secondly come it seems everybody is fighting daesh. depeche mode is fighting daesh. the shiite militia are fighting daesh. the iraqi army is fighting daesh, the syrian army is fighting daesh. has been fighting daesh and the u.s. air force is fighting daesh. outcome have been able to sustain themselves and where are they getting their weapons and money from? [speaking in native tongue]

[speaking in native tongue] >> translator: first of all, very briefly responded to you the groups that you mentioned, some of them before fighting isis have got their own internal problems fighting each other. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: therefore isis is the beneficiary in this. [speaking in native tongue]

>> translator: so this is also a question that we've been considering whether they get they get all these weapons and ammunition. we be realized that they been able to get some weapons from the syrian army some weapons from the maliki army. but they also got some new weapons. they've got some missiles antitank missiles very developed that they've used against us your. >> if i might follow up, where do those come from? [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: we really can't seem to find an answer and somebody to tell us. >> we'll do what we can right here. >> trudy rubin from "the philadelphia inquirer." pleasure to see you again mr. president. just a follow-up on otis'

question to in anbar and also in ninewah and mobile, can isis be defeated if sunnis on the ground do not rise up and fight against them? do you feel that the central government is doing enough or will do enough to do the political things necessary to encourage sunnis to rise up? and did you discuss this with the americans in your visit? do you deal the u.s. should be doing more to somehow facilitate a political deal where sunnis in these provinces would be encouraged to fight back against isis? [speaking in native tongue]

[speaking in native tongue] >> translator: to be very honest with you responding to this question -- [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: first of all it's very necessary that the sunnis and ramadi i'm also participate in this fight.

-- ramadi and mosul participate in this fight. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: the problem here is i'm sure that with the sunnis. that's why should we do that i told them that the sunnis have neither a united political reference nor a religious reference. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: that has created some difficulties among the sunnis. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: so for the sunnis to be able to play a more effective role, they have to put their act together. they have to be united among themselves. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: and we wish --

[speaking in native tongue] >> translator: and in terms of this sectarian sensitivity, it's a given fact it's there. no opinion either. we wish that it had not been there, instead, and our problems in terms of the federal government and these groups. that trust has not been built yet. >> let me first interject a question that comes from a council member who have been listening remotely that is then e-mailed them. this is from kermit jones, ma rush university medical center in chicago. the question is president barzani come in your recent remarks at the atlantic council he reiterated that an independent kurdistan is coming, once the region is stable and isis is defeated. in your vision for kurdistan now and in the future, what role do you see peshmerga fighters playing in the broader regional fight against isis?

[speaking in native tongue] >> translator: >> translator: in order to you got it after kurdistan is independent, what role the peshmerga template? >> in a broader regional struggle against isis, long-term. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: well, certainly the peshmerga's have been able to achieve what they've achieved so far and destroying the myth of isis with a very limited and humble capability that they have. sort of went peshmerga's turn to

be an army of an independence day, they will be able to achieve much more. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: certainly the peshmergas will be defending the values and principles that the free world all share and cherish your. >> here and then there. >> thank you. i was wondering whether your relationship with the syrian kurds, the pew id in particular hasn't changed a special after kobani, given fact that in the past you were not very sympathetic to the uid they would rather see the tennessee emerge as the force in syria? and in this context where do you see and what is your preference in terms of the future of what's happening in syria and bashar al-assad terrain? -- bashar all sides rein?

>> translator: [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue]

>> translator: as for the future of serious concern can indeed it's complicated and there's nothing in the horizon. to what i said neither is military solution in the horizon nor a political solution in the horizon. a possible is not for the current situation, the status quo to continue for a while. as far as the kurds of syria, our brothers and sisters. when they needed our help we sent peshmerga forces there. we have given martyrs, wounded peshmergas in order to defend our sisters and brothers in syria, we did not ask them whether they were pyd or kde or anything because we realized that the kurdish people were there attacked and it was our responsibility go out and protect them and without considering or asking them which party they belong to. as force their future is concerned and our future relations we will try our best to get back together, with each

other, have a clear statement so that we be able to help them more than this. >> michael gordon, "new york times." as i understand it, kurdish law limits the president to two terms in office. your second term in office was extended by two years and 2013 until august of this year. do you plan to seek another extension of your term in office as president or if there was significant internal opposition to that, would you step aside lex thank you. [speaking in native tongue]

[speaking in native tongue] >> translator: the two year term with a two-year extension that was extended come to was not upon my request, and it was imposed on me. and now i'm not ask for extension and i will not ask for it. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: and now i have written a letter, two years ago i have written a letter to the parliament for them to carry out an election to prepare the ground for this end for me to hand over the responsibility to the person who will be elected. [speaking in native tongue]

>> translator: and even now before my trip i've talked to the parliament and the political parties that they have to sort this issue out. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: certainly i would not be the reason that as a result of the presidency chair, i would create an intro problem for kurdistan. i will never do that. >> it's always good to see you mr. president, in washington, and i think many of us here really admire how the kurds have thrived in the last 25 years through so many conflicts. you've talked a little bit about iran, a little bit about syria but i wonder if you could give us your impression of whether turkey is being cooperative in the struggles in the region, not only against isis but generally? a member of nato, a very powerful country and very important obviously to your

region. [speaking in native tongue] will[speaking in native tongue]

>> translator: when we realized that a big change in turkey in the policies toward the kurdish question we thought that this would be a good opportunity for us also to improve our relations with turkey and to encourage them and to cooperate with them in debt. so we will continue on this in order to encourage a peaceful solution for the kurdish question in turkey. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: we enjoyed good relations with turkey now. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: in the fight against isis, turkey at the beginning had some reservations. what we see right now, that reservation has been decreased. >> and just if i can just -- [inaudible] i was going to add, what lessons did you learn from the way, or what lessons perhaps turkey learned on the way they handled the fight over kobani, which i think was reflected --

[speaking in native tongue] >> translator: of course, this was the second time for peshmerga forced ago from iraq he kurdistan to another part in order to support them to protect. the first time was in the year 1945-46 during the time of the republic of kurdistan in -- when he fourth went from iraq kurdistan to the. and this time they went from kurdistan to kobani. of course, without america cooperation and turkish cooperation this would not have been possible.

[speaking in native tongue] >> translator: a lesson we have learned if there was cooperation among us, then we would be able to achieve good results. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: and a strange coincidence, so that the first peshmerga who martyred was martyred in kobani and the first peshmerga were martyred in iran in 1946 they were cousins. >> wow. way in the back there, and then the next, just behind you. >> my iraqi passport has been

expired since march of this you. you think i should wait from the two years until i get a kurdish passport? and also -- [laughter] has any country given concrete promise to support kurdistan independence? when you met, for example, the european leaders? thank you. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: until we get an independent kurdistan, you can renew your passport, extend your

passport. iraqi ambassador is here and he's occurred. you can use that passport. [laughter] -- he is a kurd. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: so in the past there were many world leaders who were not ready to talk about kurdish independence or the rights of the kurdish people and the future of the kurds. right now that barrier is no longer there. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: so we are pleased and delighted to see the change that has taken place. in the past we would have known the answer even for the meeting. we would have known what we would be told, but we still we

would go, talk about our issues and we would be told that this is an integral issue we would not interfere. but thank god nowadays we are not hearing such kind of statements. >> better, and then back there next. >> thank you. mr. president, i had a question a forlorn question on kurdish independence. assuming that there is a progression towards that end objective, d.c. that as an end in itself as far as the kurdistan region of iraq is concerned? odc that as being a nucleus for perhaps, you know a broader sort of kurdish come together given that the kurdish nation spread across multiple countries in the region? thank you. [speaking in native tongue]

[speaking in native tongue]

[speaking in native tongue] >> translator: throughout history there've been a lot of injustices committed against our people. provide that was given to other nations our people were deprived of the right, especially after world war i when during the right to self-determination was supposed to be given to the kurdish people. each part has got its own characteristics. as a nation, yes we are one nation but we have to observe the new realities on the ground today. but most importantly the most important point is that neither we as the kurdish nation nor other nations we deal with we should not be think about bloodshed and wars and over to solve our problems. solving these problems have to be through democratic and peaceful means. and for us when we talk about kurdish independence come we talk about iraqi kurdistan, or

the southern part of kurdistan. for the other parts of kurdistan, it's up to the people, the kurdish people in these areas to decide their own future. >> right there and then there. >> hi. i nancy berg, george washington university. i have another questions about lessons learned into places that you've liberated, i wonder what the learning has been about the way i sold tries to govern, what's been happening with the people there, i the lessons about how isil operate. and then you mentioned a day after promotional. i wonder what the process is in the other areas that have been liberated from meeting the needs of the people. thank you. speeds up --

[speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue]

[speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue]

>> translator: as far as i said in the fighters are concerned, there are three main categories. first, the immigrants or the caliphate army. they are the foreign fighters who come from different parts of the world. the second group are those who were -- not have adopted the ideology of isis and some of the former baathists. they also have some other people with them at the beginning they were coordinating but now they've adopted the policies and their style. they agree on whatever isis is doing, and they agree with the approach, with the conduct and behavior, and they have chosen to be with isis and a lifestyle that has been chosen by isis. of course, they are the minority. the majority of the people better come at the beginning, the majority of the people

there, they were thinking of isis is better liberated. they came to rescue them from the situation. but that has changed afterwards when they realize the reality. now the majority of the people are tired of isis and want to change it. just imagine when one would live in such an area, that everything would be imposed on you, impose on you what to wear, what to do what you eat, went to sleep and when to wake up, and that would be very difficult to endure and to afford. and for the areas that have been liberated, those have come to kurdistan region we have held them, and those that stayed in these areas, after those who were with isis, they have left the areas those who have remained, they have been provided with respect and with services and they are much more comfortable than the times they were under isis. and according to what they told me personally when i visited these areas, they said that we don't want to belong to any other area. we want to belong to kurdistan region.

but, of course, we will provide every service and everything that we can, provided that these people are not with isis. >> we have time for one last question robin. >> thank you. robin wright, "the new yorker." what role as i ran playing specifically today in terms of providing arms and developing strategy? one of your colleagues described kassim soleimani as the commander-in-chief of iraq. in which you disagree? [speaking in native tongue]

>> translator: of course iran provide assistance to us at the very early days of the fight against isis. we were short of some kind of ammunition that was a type that we did not have any. they provide that kind of ammunition, and that was a great help to us. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: i talk him to of the kurds and on behalf of the peshmergas. they would not accept a former to lead them. >> i believe i have to give you the last word. >> your excellency such an honor to have you in d.c. second, i'm sure i will give the

passport to the -- [laughter] third, after reflection question. my father when i started my political activism back in the early '80s when asked them about describing the iraqi opposition and others, he uses saving you more deep-rooted community connection for the politics to flourish. now after 30 years how does the excellency see when you talk politics and/or interest to converge rather than the verge as what we have now in iraq? thank you. [speaking in native tongue]

[speaking in native tongue] >> translator: and i want to assure that i knew your late father before you were born. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: he was a very patriotic, their respectful and very human person. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: that same statement is true for today. >> our time is up. of what to expect -- expressed to sincere thank yous here. first to you mr. minister for

making this conversation possible. he did a flawless job and we really really appreciate it. thank you very much. we are honored to have you here. [applause] safe travels, and i hope next time you're in washington you will join us. thank you very much. [applause] >> start with the senate first. what is on tap for today and the week? rest of the week? big iss in th >> big issue in the senate is going to be trade. all eyes are on president obama come one of his top priorities for his second term is to get some of the huge international trade deals done. and the senate does going to take up a bill that was passed earlier in the month out of the senate finance committee, had broad bipartisan support and will come up during, probably wednesday or thursday. we look at that trade vote.

very interesting issue just because it splits, it's got obama on it of course but and it's got senate majority leader mitch mcconnell on it but it doesn't have harry reid. is a strong opponent as are a number of liberal democrats. they are lining up against it so this is very strange bedfellows coalition in congress, not just in the senate but in the house and it's going to be enormously for obama. it is expected to pass the senate and have a tough assignment when it was over 2000 that will be this weekend will get a boat on whether pope ago. >> host: more than a week since we've seen the house. to come back in. we last left the house to debate a couple of appropriation bills for 2016. where are they headed this week? >> guest: it's also big week in the house. about of high profile issues on tap. they will come in on tuesday come to some suspension stuff, some low-hanging fruit stuff and

i would say they will dive back into the abortion debate that republicans have tried to bring up a bill in january to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. at the yankee because of concern from female lawmakers in their own party and some republicans that the previous bill the trent franks bill had an exemption for rape victims but only if the reported the rape to police. does a lot of concern within the republican party that i was going to send the wrong message to women, that it was a far too high and to the new version would yank that language can just require the doctor to ensure that the woman has received either medical treatment or license council and at least 48 hours prior to the service. that vote is expected on wednesday. also on wednesday another huge issue. the patriot act renewal, their sections that are supposed to expire on june 1 time in particular section 215, enormously controversial section just because the nsa national

security agency uses that provision to justify bulk collection of phone records. just last week a federal court ruled that the nsa's bulk collection without a work is illegal. so there's a lot of big push in congress to eliminate that and the house bill would do. it would by the government from collecting phone records involved and instead require the agency to make specific requests to private companies and that is also supposed to come up on wednesday. then moving right along on thursday there is a defense authorization vote expected, house armed services pass this bill last month and also very controversial because the are a couple of resolutions in their at the pentagon should move to allow illegal immigrants brought to the countries kids to serve in military. that these are the dreamers. of course, immigration has been such a thorny issue with executive actions that this involves all of that. another very tough issue for

republicans here is not a move that than with the immigration language attached. there's a big movie get it out of their come and go to expand it. so that fight will also be going on on thursday. >> host: the hill is reporting that i believe there's republican support for including allowing the dreamers to have military service correct? >> guest: sure. it was a republican amendment in the committee come into armed services committee that installed of this stuff, and then jeff denham, republican from california heavy latino district and he is pushing to expand the immigration light which to allow illegal immigrants to serve in the military in exchange for legal status. he has tried that in the past and the gop leaders didn't allow him a vote on that amendment on the floor. it's not clear if they're going to do the same thing this year. is also pushing for that. is been more conservative guy wants to eliminate the language

that's already in the. you will see that republican versus republican battle on the floor on thursday over this defense bill. >> host: a full week ahead in both the house and the center we appreciate mike lillis joining us. read more at thehill.com. thank you very much. >> guest: thank you bill. appreciate it. >> the senate gavels in today at 3 p.m. eastern for general speeches. lawmakers will vote on the iran revolution -- resolution. live coverage on on c-span2. e-health.com or at 2:30 p.m. working on trade promotion legislation to you can see the house live on c-span. >> the former director of national intelligence john negroponte the current state of american diplomacy and national security now document the evolution of the u.s. as an international economic and political power and what current and future governments need to do in order to maintain everything broken foreign policy and global security. institute of world politics is the host of this event.

>> and now he has a similar role because probably a third to a half of our intelligence apparatus today is probably coming out of the corporate world. and the intelligence and national security alliance coordinates and provides training for the corporate world there can this point the ambassador is the chairman of that board. and we welcome him and we look forward to hearing your remarks. [applause] >> isobel because i was thinking of bill casey. your father-in-law.

whom i used to welcome to honduras when i was ambassador there. so thank you, owen smith, very much, for your kind introduction. i do want to thank also matt daniels for having had the idea of organizing this discussion. and i'm going to make some remarks for maybe 20 minutes or half an hour something like that about diplomacy and foreign policy and national security issues, and then we are going to have a question and answer for a while and then we'll open it up to questions from the audience as a whole. but what i wanted to say at the outset is that diplomacy is really older than the republic. i know it's sort of self-evident, given what we all know about the diplomacy that

was conducted by the founding fathers, but it's important to recall come on at four of the state department the portrait hanging on the wall at the very end of the ceremonial is a portrait of of ben franklin, who we refer to as the father of american diplomacy. and there was john adams thomas jefferson. these people were instrumental in gaining support for american independence. i don't think we can point to diplomatic achievements of quite such a scope and magnitude as was accomplished more than two centuries ago. the support for our independence the expansion of our territory thereafter once we became a republic. i was speaking to a group of 600

lawyers last, this past saturday evening down in of all places bulk of raton florida where they were having their annual outing. and a lot of them were in the real estate department of law from and i said you guys just don't know anything about real estate deals. think about the louisiana purchase and think about the acquisition of florida where we are standing at this very moment, and think about stewart's folly, the $67 million purchase of alaska. and again that is really quite incredible diplomacy. and likewise the diplomacy of abraham lincoln in helping to save our union with our fledgling or not so fledgling but you might say early adulthood republic was in dire

straits and in severe danger of collapsing on itself. and supported the diplomacy was exerted in order to avoid countries like england coming in on the side of the confederacy. and that was a real danger at that particular time. so you know, when people start telling you that the diplomacy to look at in the 19th century is about metternich and all those people, my answer to that is let's look at some of the diplomacy that we americans conducted ourselves during that century. the next thing i like to make a few comments about is the issue of leadership. and i mean leadership by our country. really that period of post-civil war after we averted a catastrophe of the union being

divided and we had, by the way a president who is really committed to the growth and very interesting our our expansion westward and the construction of our transcontinental railroad and all those things. that's what he would have been doing had there not been a civil war. that's what he really was very, very interested in. and by 1870 we have become the largest, in terms of gdp the largest economy in the world. i think that's an interesting date, 1870, to have reached that status in the world the world economy, because it's not beyond imagination that the country of china will become similarly perhaps the largest country by gdp but overall gdp within the next decade or so.

this is not an impossibility whatsoever. it took from 1870 about 40 years really to the advent of the first world war before we began to play a global role commensurate with our economic strength. it just causes me to wonder at what point china will be able to convert its obvious economic strength that it has now into really effective global legal action. i'm not trying to venture any prediction for you but our own national experience suggests that this equation if you will, the translation from economic to political power isn't necessarily automatic, number one, and secondly it doesn't necessarily happen right away. there are other factors that come into play.

in our case it was world war i. it was woodrow wilson. it was the role we played in helping bring that war to an end, but regrettably the diplomacy of woodrow wilson, which was very active very proactive, in fact be almost say they conducted too much of it himself, but he negotiated the treaty of versailles with the allied powers. and as we all know that treaty first of all we didn't wilson didn't succeed in getting it ratified by the senate. i think in part because he was very ill at the time just a sidebar about the presidency, but that's not a job that is very easy to to conduct when you have serious health problems. and woodrow wilson sort i had the time of the versailles debate. as the result without us being

in the system that was negotiated, we really planted the seeds of the next war. and that brings us to franklin roosevelt who succeeded in several major respects. first of all been leading our country to building the largest economic machine that had ever been known in the history of man. just absolutely extraordinary accomplishment to build the that economy but also mobilizing some 60 million people. he pursued a grand strategy in fighting the war that was nothing short of brilliant in terms of managing to lay out on -- delay our own actual entry into the fighting until such time as we really were ready to go into action, and not

everybody particularly likes of this fact and by making a pact with the devil if you will, joseph stalin, in order to come here recognize a necessity that in order to beat hitler you had to align yourself with the soviet union, at least during the time that we were actually in the emergency of fighting against the nazi regime. and then lastly, it is i think is where he compares from a diplomatic point of view very favorably with woodrow wilson, he really believed in preparing the postwar period i think a lot more systematically than woodrow wilson had. i mean he and winston churchill really started doing that right from the beginning when they pronounced the atlantic charter and so forth.

and yet a lot of planners doubt that the state department and the white house elsewhere working on the postwar system, which, of course, resulted in the creation of the united nations and the bretton woods economic system both of which we more or less to operate under today although more about that subject a little bit later. and he had i think the foresight and intelligence to insist, some people don't like it but they insisted on having the veto in the security council within the u.n. charter because he said and he judged, everything correctly, that otherwise that congress would not once again have ratified yet another treaty charter ending yet another war. so i think he felt that for credit -- that for congressional ratification there had to be a veto in the security council and that's how the charter was

adopted. at the end of the war as we all know, the united states' economy was extraordinarily strong. we represented something like 50% of the global gdp, and i would say we had political influence around the world that was commensurate with that tremendous strength. this is very rapid. i'm not going to take you through volumes of history here but the cold war events would've challenged this postwar order that had been established by roosevelt and it happened quite fast. we date the cold war from 1947, 1947 in 1991. there were a number of major regional conflicts during that time. i would cite most importantly korea, vietnam and afghanistan.

and we had close brush is a couple of times with nuclear exchanges. i think most especially in the cuban missile crisis when nikita khrushchev was foolhardy enough to send ships towards the island of cuba armed with nuclear missiles, which i think was an irresponsible act on his part. after come with great skill i think, the kennedy administration, and that's been documented and written about in many different ways, makes for some fascinating reading, one of my favorite books is actually bobby kennedy's own account robert kennedy's own account of those events which was called 13 days. we had this close brush with nuclear exchange but we got past it. so then we moved into the post cold war period which really

started with the political transformation of eastern europe in 1989 and 1990 starting first of all i think i would say with poland and lech walesa and the fact there was a polish pope blessing plate and extraordinarily important role in catalyzing if you will, the end of the cold war. and deny the collapse of the ussr at the end of 1991. and yet you just have to understand, those of you who are not old enough to live through that period that none of us professional diplomats believed that this eventuality was possible. there may be people who tell you that i foresaw that oh yeah it was always going to happen. believe me, we were surprised. and a lot of people were surprised. there may be a handful who can say that they have not lost faith that freedom could come to

the eastern bloc and that the berlin wall could come down. but i think you can count every much on the fingers of one hand. ronald reagan, jeanne kirkpatrick was one a number of others -- [inaudible] >> dick walters, right. it was at the u.n. during that time. but i think you would agree with me that they were in a minority were they not? do were those who were really just reconciled to this sort of perpetual on the of this cold war division. thank goodness it didn't turn out that way. and so from that day forward we no longer view defense around the globe through the prism, if you will of east west rivalry. and we went through a period in the 1990s when we thought of ourselves, and was articulated by madeleine albright as the sole remaining superpower.

and the clinton administration also exercised an option, if you will, for a peace dividend can a reduction of defense expenditures and a reduction of expenditures for national security. ..

embedded up doing for different jobs between eight years of the bush administration starting first with being ambassador to the united nations. actually, i wasn't confirmed until after 9/11 because my nomination had been held up for a relevant political reasons. and i was about to have a hearing on the 12th of september. it had been scheduled for the 12th. 9/11 happened and of course they canceled my hearing but then they rescheduled it. they reflect it rather quickly and said holbrooke (-left-paren months earlier. we need a permanent representative in new york. so they gave me my hearing on the 13th, which is tuesday wednesday, thursday. that friday night i was come

armed by the entire senate along with voice vote and a couple hundred other people waiting for senate confirmation. having been delayed six and having waited desperately to get a hearing, it happens in a couple days time and i made it up to new york. iraq came onto the agenda fairly early on. with the change of administration in 2009, there was a deemphasize of the iraq and afghanistan conflict i would say, but all the while maintaining a robust counterterrorism policy as opposed to a counterinsurgency pilot ama policy of trying to build the iraqi and afghan nations. we put less emphasis on night and we been putting more on the counterterrorist aspect.

probably the next timeframe if you will and perhaps the one we are in now is the arabs burying and its sequel. it was i say the next watershed starting with tunisia in early 2011. since then, the social and political unrest and violence has struck the middle east with a vengeance. egypt, syria, libya and now yemen. the political turbulence has been compounded by the sunni extremist terrorist whether it is a face or al qaeda both in the middle east are also in the adjacent areas of africa. that is to say al qaeda in the monograph. that is the one of the trend

that has occurred is the movement of this extremist to the t. from the middle east to parts of africa and of course continues in parts of south asia. while all of this is going on in this nonstate actor activity that we have been experiencing we can't neglect the fact that there are rising powers. we talked about the united states having been represented 50% of the global gdp back in 1945. we don't represent that anymore today. something more approximating 20% and there are other important rising nation. most of port lane scores is china which after 150 years of relative weakness common started

to emerge from that situation back in the early 1970s. i had the opportunity to go to china with henry kissinger in june 1972 and i have been watching developments in china ever since. and i remember 1979 when we establish relations with china i was serving then. i just moved over late 79 early 80s to the east asia bureau. i remember is debating what are we going to import for this economy. we recognize china appeared lifted the embargo were scratching our heads. what are we going to buy? what chocolate the question today because it is how can we stop by a quite so much from china seems to be one of the questions people have. the important point for 150

years of weakness and may consider humiliation in many different kinds of situation whether the opium wars or whatever example you choose to cite me special concessions for the european powers in china. the country has now come back to it's own. if you read dr. kissinger's book on china which is a very thorough book on china from a u.s. base, she makes the point back in the 17th and 18th centuries, china's economy was perhaps the largest in the world. for them they are going back to what they may have can endured a normal situation two or 300 years ago whereas we sometimes still have a certain amount of difficulty, intellectually and emotionally, adjusting to the fact that china is almost a pure

of hours in the economic realm and may someday in terms of its economic strength, surpass the united states in overall terms although obviously it will be a longtime insider before china can match our economy or many others in terms of per capita income. the other rising power -- and i say rising. of course it was an import power before it but i was in a rush because with the collapse of the soviet union we talked about earlier, russia went through a period in the name to name these where it was felt very weekend. it felt like not only us, but the west in general treated russia as a defeated power. they very often used the technology when talking to us. there was a point in the 1990s

when the russian economy and its gdp added up to something along the level of the netherlands and that is how we can their economy was. of course now under president clinton's leadership but also with the good fortune of greater oil discoveries and gas discoveries in russia and higher prices not what has happened in recent times but compared to the 1990s, higher prices, russian economy is on a stronger footing than it was and you have to think of it also as a rising power. cities or countries. not allies obviously. they are not part of our free-trade network of countries either, but they are amongst the rising powers that we take into account as we formulate foreign policies and strategies in the years ahead.

so where does this leave us today. we were a fledgling republic in the first half in the early 19th century. we've are the leader, undisputed leader of the free world pretty much through the entirety of the 20th century. so we are coming off of a pretty good record and the question is what will be our role and what will be our place in the 21st century. i don't presume to be able to answer that question. with any degree of certainty but i would answer it with a certain degree of confidence. it seems to me we still have a lot of things going for this society. i want to mention one of the more intangible one first because i think it is an

origins. that is we are very resilient and we have a creative and inventive and innovative economy. this is some team that is the envy of just about any other country in the world. i teach part-time at gail as the one mentioned. whenever we try to organize exchanges with another country or even between ngos that i'm involved with working on exchanges between students over there and over here, one of the first things people ask for, especially if there are entrepreneurs is how do i instill the sort of silicon valley mentality into our students? how do you teach entrepreneurship? have you teach innovation? i'm sure it can be taught to a certain point, but i am not certain that it doesn't also

have to do with the very conditions in which our society operates through human freedom and the ability of everybody. the greater opportunity for people to maximize potential. so that is one important fact here. the second is we still are and will continue to be for a while the strongest economy in the world and our recovery from the financial crisis of 2008-2009 has been good if not better then any other country. we have the military capacity that is unequaled around the world. so even though we are now a 20% of the global economy, thinking about it the other day if you take just our allies, basically

europe japan and korea and on the strength of their economy is two hours come to your backup to the 50% i was talking about in 1945. we helped build those countries back to a situation in which they are. we've got a slightly different distribution of the overall wealth, but it is some thing we share with friends. so with those kinds of friends plus the network are free trading relationships we have undertaken during the past 20 years there's really no reason we cannot continue to play a significant leadership role in world affairs. perhaps even more important is an obligation to do that. i don't think we can shirk her responsibility is having that kind of strength both economic

and military and having the kind of history and representing the values we do is seems to me it's an obligation on our part to continue to strive to play a leadership role in world affairs. can we do it alone? no. absolutely not. we don't have that power commensurate to what we talked about at the end of world war ii. we should want to eat there. we are only 4% or 5% of the global population. for many of these issues to be dealt with effectively, whether it's the very issues of transnational crime or international terrorism or global warming, there is no possible way you deal with them except in partnership with other countries. i would say we are entering into an era of mutuality of interest with other countries, an era of

interdependence and i think it behooves us to take this new era of very seriously and with great responsibility and i am confident that under the circumstances we face today and provided we continue our past to keep perfect game our own society and work closely with our friends around the world that we can continue to play the kind of strong leadership role that we played in the last century. whether we will be the absolutely predominant power or not i don't necessarily think so but will we have a big part in the situation? i would say the answer is emphatically yes. thank you for listening to me a note be to do some questions. thank you.

[applause] >> i will step up for two minutes. >> sure, absolutely. >> i was told there was some water here. >> thank you ambassador. thank you everyone who came today. i'm the founder at the center for human rights international affairs here. you reference about the rising terrorist movements we see in the world today. the terrorist movements have led to a decade of setbacks for human rights internationally and we all need to be concerned about that because it's not getting any better. we found that the center for human rights international affairs to advanced principles of freedom and human rights that are the ultimate antidote to the negative trend. my question today for the ambassador will focus on the intersection of human rights in

the and after we've asked a few questions will take questions from the floor. the first question for you if there are some who regard human rights is in tension with the rail principles of rail policy who don't need such attention. we think the promotion of human rights world wide advances u.s. national security interest properly understood. can you comment on this issue of whether there is a tension between the promotion of human rights in foreign policy? >> i'd be happy to. there is the bottle water. i see it now under there. i would be happy to. i was laughing to myself because in some administration there were great arguments in tensions

between those advocating human rights and sometimes there're quite some fireworks i was able to observe. so i guess there is always a tension amongst policymakers those who have a unique focus on one functional area or one substantiated issue versus those who have say and overall responsibility for the policy. i think to the fundamental question, i don't think there's any incompatibility with the lever between the pursuit of vigorous human rights policy and our overall foreign policy. but if i could try to broaden your point a bit it seems to me we talked about alliances now in my remarks.

we do not have any alliances with countries that we do not consider democratic. talking about formal political alliances which have trees which obligate us for constitutional mechanisms to come to the defense in the event they get attacked. essentially, these are alliances with democracies. a couple of countries he might be able to put in the doubtful column depending what point in history you are referring. for exam will under the dictatorship. by a modest comeback to take all of europe, japan australia south korea, these are all allied countries and they are all democratic and day in a way demonstrated the truth of your proposition because very often we came to the relationship of

those countries for security reasons but we saw the wisdom of japan, germany, south korea but we saw the list of helping them to ballot democratic countries that respect human rights. i think when things get a little bit complicated, it is in the day-to-day tactics of our foreign policy and dare you will sometimes find serious disagreements not only in the state department, but around this town and maybe around our country, which is, for example what do you do about human rights violations with a country where you have other extremely significant interest, whether it is the largest oil-producing country in the world or the country of china which is about to become possibly the largest

economy in the world. you have to find balances as to how you make clear you support human rights in these countries, but at the same time we are sometimes limited by the real possibility of sanctified by two things. one buyer interest in the other is simply our capacity. we have learned just because you overthrow an unpopular government that doesn't necessarily mean a democratic country is automatically going to sprout up. we further learn the chaos that can sometimes be created by the fact of having overthrown or help overthrow the government is suddenly beyond our material capacity to be of assistance. the iraq war and the afghanistan

war costs hundreds of millions if not trillions of dollars. i don't think we want to see that experience replicated in syria. i don't think we want to send a hundred thousand troops there to make it right nor too young then, nor any other place. i'm sure the people of the united states probably feel they have more than their share of these expeditionary devotees in recent times and would welcome a respite from that. again it is a balancing act, but the overall goal is definitely to continue to promote human rights, but with a view to helping nurture democracy around the world. >> related question. do you believe in countering movements like i says there is

more that can be done to promote human rights to stop these movements from gaining recruits in winning the battle of our hearts and minds? >> you are asking about whether or the fact of a regime being repressed it might be some pain that causes some of this kind of rebellious activity. is that the thrust of your question? >> just as in the cold war we cap raised in the human rights issue in our conflict with the soviet union and not just negotiating the arms table, but we kept bringing up the gulag system and oppression of their own people. we need to continue to mount an educational effort around the importance of human rights in these parts of the world. >> absolutely. we need to do a realistically

and have some sense of what kind of situation it is the government confronts. we have to do it patiently it seems to be. i don't think human rights and democracy can necessarily be established overnight. may 3rd point is we have to do it with the recognition that there are some situations people i read for the primordial concern is just plain old security. it is safety from the gunfire going on around them and the violence in the disturbances. there are situations where people will most certainly most assuredly value security of their self their person more than anything else. until the government has succeeded in having adequate

police force is an adequate military forces and whatever else it takes to establish requisite conditions of security it is sometimes not that easy to promote the human rights agenda. >> re: too slow to sometimes criticize human rights abuses by countries that are allies or procedures? >> well, i am in the category of those who prefer to work these issues through quieter diplomacy. i am not sure you gain much particularly as an ally, if you gain much returning their compliments if you publicly embarrass them somehow. you may undermine them depending how you handle it. so i am more on theof

quiet diplomacy although recognizing there are times when you have to be public about these things. i will give you an example of going public on human rights that seem unusual to those of us in the business a long time. i entered the foreign service in 1960. we didn't have a legal requirement to write human rights reports. that was passed in the early 70s. i found it quite shocking to my sense of what the conduct of diplomacy was about. when are we calling out all these questions for everything we think they are doing wrong. i got used to the fact and after a while they seem to be it wasn't so bad to have the reports but important day be drafted carefully, that they be careful about you on

incompleteness touched in that they not be done was to much fanfare. now you can go to the library or the internet and find the state department annual human rights report on every single country in the world. i don't think that has the effect of creating a huge uproar in relations with other countries. part of it is the fact it has become a more recognized part of international discourse for a and for others and that is ultimately probably to the good. >> the president in his cairo speech talked about emphasizing human rights and foreign policy in the middle east. many people view that is more rhetoric than reality. do you think we've done enough in our middle eastern foreign policy with respect and rights?

>> and turned about the way we've gone about it, but that is one of the takeaways of my overall career. i don't think because you note the dictator or you think the shaw is not a good guide you don't like anastasios somoza and you don't like saddam hussein that it automatically follows that you should go in overthrow these people or that you don't like mr. mubarak. i think every one of the situations i've mention has brought on more -- has created more problems than it solved. so i ask of those who are advocates for human rights perhaps to consider the

possibility that focusing on regime change may not necessarily be the end there and it may be that we need to take a longer and more patient roach. i would cite in fact the example of the catholic church or other churches, but the catholic church sometimes has adopted a policy of long-suffering patient continuation with its mission in whatever country it was, but never allowing the hope for freedom to die but not necessarily singing we've got to get rid of these guys. i think we've done a bit too much of that and i think it says that, in a brought more problems than it has solved. >> it has been 14 years since the passage of the patriot act. inc. the patriot act has in any way and injured fundamental

freedoms in the u.s. or imbalanced you think it has done its job well without inhibiting fundamental rights? >> it's a great question you're asking someone who is not a scholar of this issue but who has been a practitioner. as the director of national intelligence, i have a certain amount of visibility into these matters and was fully apprised of the surveillance program being hit by the nsa and maybe not as familiar with the work the fbi did. just because i didn't have as much of a role in approving those activities but i did with respect to the nsa. that came under my purview and i had to sign quarterly letters to the judge is of the fisa court to recommend extension of those activities or another quarter.

honestly, i never saw a any behaviors that seem to me to impinge on the human rights and freedoms of our citizens. i visited nsa a number of times and they explained to me in great detail and even showed me out there in his different rooms where they are carrying out activities of many computers and so forth. ..