arguing for or not enough, we need to build up, yes, we do. there are not enough of them. we've got to start somewhere. that's the point. everyday we don't support moderate forces, they are hit by assad and retreat further. >> there may be something between this huge granular detail as you put it that might give assistance to assad on the one hand and some general information that may give more credibility to the number that you put into the public domain? .. domain? >> i've considered it, but i've given the answer i think is appropriate. >> without it, people are going to wonder whether this is a reliable number. >> look. all i can say is we had an nsc

discussion. the joint intelligence commission produced the figure. i questioned and probed on the figure. they said they thought 70,000 was the best estimate of non-extremism opposition fighters. the americans have said that is within their and if you want to say that the j i seen misleeds, you won't believe me unless i give more detail. for precisely this purpose. iron said it is going to increase your credibility. >> come forward with something. you maintain you are not going to. the libyan intervention after we went to syria to degrade i still which deprived the region of one of isil's most ruthless opponents. >> it is certainly true that

gadhafi was a particular, an opponent of extremist groups like al qaeda, he worked famously with the last government for that end but i didn't think in any way we should look back firmly to the time of gaddafi because -- >> whether we lost the characters there for all his accounting was an extremely nasty piece of work was at least on the right side of the main reason -- >> the end of his time in office he might have been on the right side of that issue but still dealing with what was given by gaddafi to the i r a satellite don't think that was somehow a golden era in libyan relations. and we have a growing isil

franchise in many countries around the world. the truth is we are dealing with an extremist violence ideology that is taking hold in all states that are fractured or broken or insufficient in any way. you see that in nigeria, al shabaab in somalia, but we see it in libya. this points towards making sure good governance is what kills terrorists in all these circumstances in the same way which is to build strong inclusive government. >> there are lessons to be learned from these interventions. and we have to be careful about not dismantling states. that went disastrously wrong too.

>> the libyan people were given the opportunity. gadhafi was bearing down threatening to shoot his own people like rats. international coalition came to protect those people land help people who then got rid of gaddafi and they had an opportunity -- what i am saying is the opportunity wasn't taken. and assistance was offered. i took the libyan prime minister -- for reasons we can go into with the rest of it, it was impossible to deliver that sort of government as a new opportunity with a coming together a libyan national government and the critics of these things, the choice we made in libya is partly at the request of the libyans themselves with the demise of

gaddafi was thought to go in heavy-handed with boots on the ground and troops and held them construct their government, they didn't want that, they thought it would be counterproductive and they would be able to put together representative institutions. it was impossible our it prospered. >> i am not saying that. i am saying that humanitarian balance sheet doesn't look good, failure to engage in nation-building created a breeding ground for isis but we were involved in nation-building. we were there to help the libyan people in a way that was more remote than what happened in iraq and on this occasion it didn't work. >> very difficult and intractable issue, i was going to ask something that you can

deal with andy you say yes to these propositions and unlike these others they are about what you do. what i would like to ask you about is the issue of targeted killing by drones, which you told the house about in relation to a targeted killing by drones in syria and been carried out and you came to the house on the seventh of september and i have two questions about this. the first is will you agree to the suggestion that you actually sat down in writing, published a policy about targeted killing by drones because by what you said in the house of commons, statements from the defense secretary, we had a number of

different statements but what we haven't had and you agree wind you did that in september, a new departure, we need to be clear what the legal basis is, what the operational framework is, and americans published -- the situation in syria now because we voted for the use of force in syria but as you said at the time this could happen, the same issues could be the same issues could be raised in relation to somebody to be targeted to be killed in yemen or libya or some place where we can't apprehend them. the first thing is this is a serious issue, you have acknowledged yet. doesn't seem to ask and to piece it together ourselves by putting together what you said and the

secretary of state said and for example the select committee was very helpful about giving us information about the framework but that is not good enough i don't think and i would like to put to you that you could easily resolve this by actually having any policy that would deal among other things, we worked out there are people who are not targeted to be killed on the one hand but there are people you don't want to kill on the other hand but there seems to be a gray area of people who are not the target but that they are killed, that is all right like that two other people that were killed at the time on the 21st of august and i think we should note who is in this gray area. for example, we have seen daesh using guns on young children, a young child there who would be

involved in daesh videos. in innocent civilian or somebody who is collateral equal during this. >> very interesting. i don't have -- my view, my view would be in the house of commons, the approach we take, the legal basis we take, publish legal advice that we would be familiar with. there's a clear policy and when you say why not send it the way the americans do, far larger, more extensive program raised across afghanistan and elsewhere. i don't think the two situations are comparable. i set i always reserve the right

to take action to protect the country in advance but reporting back afterwards which is what i did and i set out the reasons with legal advice and the question you were asking as it went on i started thinking it would be quite difficult to write all these things down a policy statement and the question you were putting in your question might get into difficulty and the principle is simple that we only would take this action in the most extreme circumstances where there are no other options available and we are acting legally. and the process that we followed. i am not inclined to write some policy statements along the lines you suggested. it would be difficult to do. what i said in the house of commons is sufficient. i would be happy to think about it. but i could see some disadvantages in what you are saying as we might potentially right out something that doesn't engage all the circumstances you

are talking about and eager to mislead the british public in some way because we haven't thought of the circumstances that could occur or in another way give vital intelligence to the people who might speak to islam, they would know how to avoid becoming at risk themselves if that makes sense. >> i don't think there was any suggestion they should be legislated, nor the suggestion that it should be done in such a way that gives intelligent information away but i hear what you say, you are going to think about it but i would say a statement to the house and the issue that reported this is not good enough in terms of information that needs to be there but the second question i would like to ask which the chair of the liaison committee has written to you about is the question of independence and accountability for this action once it has actually been taken. obviously if the police kill somebody in the line of their activity it automatically is

reviewed by the i p c c, serious issues of taking life and the question of somebody independently looking at it retrospectively and says what is justified. don't you think there should be some independent oversight after a targeted killing to ask was there sufficient evidence that it was a dangerous person, was it the right person in this case, was there sufficient avoidance of collateral damage? instead of it just being done and you coming to the house and saying we have done it, there actually is some independent oversight. it would need to be people if you are looking at sufficiency of evidence, it would have to be someone security cleared but we have the security committee, why can't you let them do that and some accountability and you know

the proper accountability. >> i don't mean to be difficult. looking at the intelligence around the particular strike that i mentioned and around that, they are a lot stronger, a committee in the firehouse, it seems i shouldn't determine what the investigations are. if they want to make as investigations they should. what they can't do is look at current operations. sometimes these things are part of the current operation settle for potential operations. to keep countries states. it would be able to on future occasions. it would be a way through this.

that sometimes could include other people with danger of investigation going on. >> they are not looking at it yet. they asked for it and still are not looking at it. we could get -- and people and our security cleared, and the policy, lot has been taken and have independent oversight afterwards. it seems like easy things for you to be able to say yes to and bearing in mind the progress, i would think it would make sense to agree to the second one on oversight, they are not looking

at it yet. >> they are looking at the intelligence, to say just that. just one little point, these decisions are in no way made lately. it is one of the most difficult decisions for any prime minister to make an in make important legal advice, and the actions that we take through the process. not just legal advice that is given and it would be unthinkable to previous generations. with these sorts of actions. and rightly so, these are important decisions. >> i wrote to you in november and got a reply a day or so ago.

it is amazing these hearings -- so kind of view. what i derived from the answer is that you are not actually giving the i s c what they need to, what that might consist of. this was not a military operation, was it, prime minister? >> in defense of the united kingdom to protect us against attack using a nuclear asset if you want to call that, whatever labor on it you like. >> the use of that military operation from scrutiny, haven't you? >> they could look at the

intelligence around it. >> hold on a second. hang on. we are currently engaged in an operation to defeat a terrorist organization that is intending to blow up, kill and maim our citizens. that is what is going on. we are going to focus on that and think about how to keep this country safe. it is a current operation. people who are planning to try to do damage to this country and you don't know what you are doing. >> i am asking you whether you had military aspects of this operation from the inquiry. and a memorandum of understanding which you asked me to refer to. you see clearly, i have to admit

it is pretty difficult the operations conducted are not part of me i s c oversight responsibilities. clearly wide telling me that is not part of their word. how can they do their job and examine their specific strategy if they are not able to look at the military aspect? >> the question is did the intelligence -- the question you want asked and unjustified position the bend on the intelligence we had, what their intentions were and that information will be given to the i s c and they will come to their own -- >> whether the use of force deployed was necessary or proportionate and to do that they need to look at the specifics of the military operation. how can they divine whether -- >> why didn't you ask me if it

was pro-abortion. it was my decision. you can ask me -- >> you said if we want reassurance that what you are saying is a correct judgment, we should not rely on what you said. >> i didn't say that. i said you should rely on what i said. i said we have taken -- very important and significant decision. i am here to explain and give the detail that i thought was possible, and their advice in order to give away our capabilities and i am happy to give further answers to questions whether it was necessary and proportionate and yes it was because it wasn't proportionate it wouldn't have been given legal sanction that it was. a key test in terms of the legality. >> you asked them to look at this because we need to know

whether we should rely on the judgment that you made. that is what you are giving the public reassurance about. >> the reason for the ifc to do the work is i cannot reveal and should not reveal the intelligence the we have about these individual people. that would go against common sense, good practice and everything else we can think of. therefore because that is why we have the intelligence security -- the isc but the these intelligence that people are trusted members of parliament who are not going to reveal the information publicly and they can look at that intelligence can come to the decision did the government make or did it not make the right decision based on this intelligence, that is their job. they're stronger since i became prime minister. >> a sympathetic observer could conclude if they can't look at the specific military aspects of this operation in order to judge

the proportionality. hang on a minute. in order to judge the proportionality of the use of force in this case. that sympathetic member of the public could conclude the work was incomplete. and conclude work could be rendered meaningless, inability to look at military operation. >> the operation has been described for the house of commons, you could ask about it now come to your own conclusion whether it was necessarily proportionate. i argue that it was. look at intelligence -- i think you are wrong, not the intelligence, defense committee they are not responsible for looking at military assets or looking at intelligence and that is what they are going to do. >> there are provisions to authorize their look at this information. you have to get act on it and

the legislation. that is what i am asking you to do by re-examining that area. in order to get the public the reassurance you and i both agree. i think the public by and large understand the threat that we face, the public understand this is an ongoing operation, a threat we face. they support the action we took, they can see it is necessary and proportionate when dealing with people, whoever else, the government doesn't do these without thinking hard that is why we have an attorney general or listen to the advice and why the intelligence is examined by the intelligence and security committee. that is the right way to go about it. >> an aspect of the work to also be imperiled by the fact that under the legislation the somewhat more powerful i s c many would argue and i would not

yet, have to rely what was authorized by secretaries of state. will you now agreeing that all information relevant to this held by secretaries of state will be released and therefore the power to withhold information under section 4 of the intelligence security would not be exercised in this case. >> the detailed question you ask. i would not be inclined to say that is an easy thing to say yes to. that is why i am trying to be frank with you. in detail at the question you ask but my instinctive answer would be no. >> to recruit this committee full intelligence cleared people

in order to be able -- >> rely on that. >> ask the question, that is why you instructed them to do this work. >> let me explain why my instinct would be worried about this. that is what the intelligence -- let's get the intelligence but you have to be incredibly cheerful with highly sensitive information that if revealed could result in somebody's death. the source that the view that information could be at risk. let me answer it. you are asking me should the government have no hold back on the intelligence in gives, instinctively i would be worried about that. there might be intelligence so sensitive that it has released anyway could endanger the source of that intelligence liege in

that case the government should keep that intelligence as tightly held as possible. there might be locations you can't share that with the committee. the instinctive answer -- >> would you release the rest of the information? >> i will not give you that bulgaria. i have given you t . i have given you the reason for being skeptical. suddenly you find as prime minister you can't take the action to keep the country saved. i would rather give you a difficult answer now kind at this a country then give an easier answer and then why are ourselves in bureaucracy and procedures so we couldn't take necessary action to protect -- >> agreed to look at it again is good enough for me. >> i am going to stay something nice. i congratulate you on reaching our target of thousands of

refugees by christmas and ask you how it jumped so rapidly between the 26th of november? >> what i would love to say because of the intervention of an activist prime minister, the truth is these things take time to ramp up. i think the minister i appointed has done a very good job but i pay tribute to local authorities around the country who came forward with offers of help. there was a huge amount of work in processing these people but there was a lot of drive to try to demonstrate when wheat said 20,000 workers we really meant it. and i am delighted that we meant it, giving full credit to local authorities and people like -- to house refugees, has been turned down. it has not been cleared.

these effortss remain on the table, from thousands of british citizens. will you look again at these offers that have been made by those who wish to be part of the solution to this problem? >> i am happy to do that. i think to get this to a good start asking local authorities who could provide public or private housing, who could put in place all the procedures and everything that was necessary, was the right way to do it. can we open it up a little more? if people make all those offereds we could take the lawn. >> what happened in cologne, do you think angela merkel went too far in making the offer that she did to those who were coming into europe? >> continental european power is

a difficult situation because people coming into europe in large number. we have a discussion about being you the border and we should. we can have a discussion about how european countries, supporting refugee camps and helping stay in the region. germany has been a very popular destination. i will leave the german politicians to germany. >> we will see you again. >> i will come back. >> order, order. we are going to begin any way. what are the affects of people coming into the country as migrants? one of the concerns is the number of terrorists who may

have been masquerading as refugees, the paris attack across the border with fake passports. there could be 10,000 fake passports. what are we doing to help other countries in the e.u. to try to deal with this area? >> we are doing everything we can to make sure the information is robust and it is very important because our own borders, we can stop anyone coming in to the country and question them. we turned away 93,004 nationals, 6,000 e.u. nationals, it helps if there are good and robust border patrols in other european countries particularly at europe's external border. my sense is they are improving, the information system gives us vital information that when we can match up with our data we

can -- people who might be a risk are traveling. in the european union to do more, in the last month we had this breakthrough on passenger name records console speaks volumes this security argument about how the e.u. can work together to keep various countries safe. there is a lot more to be done. >> on individual cases there are concerns that one of the paris attackers was the leader of those responsible in paris came into the country, went through dover and returned to paris. what are we doing to make sure when people enter the country, putting checks on in trees that this case, to cause a lot of concern? >> we try to do everything we can to mary about the data we

have about people who are a risk with our border data to work with european partners to make sure they are doing the same thing to share that information and that is why one of the reasons we never took out our borders we think it is important we do that work ourselves but this is the best of both worlds where we use our own system, get better approaches across europe as well so we have that information as well. we always stop people who want to do harm? very difficult to give that guarantee because some of the people we have been talking about, foreign nationals and summer european nationals and i have been to a number of european councils about this. the real impetus for europe to improve its systems and practices, people think that is just exchanging passenger information. for years it was impossible to

get this agreement inside europe, not just information about passenger names but the data about where someone got their tickets, that information can be up to you, vital in finding out -- i think this is an area of progress where we need to do more where our own secretary is leading the charge that we could end up with the best of both worlds with europe doing more and thus doing more. >> i agree with all of that and is going to be helpful. on television supporting daesh, he had mentioned these killers, he was a member of al majahad n majahadoon, and he is jailed and bail before giving up his passport. by the time it was written on

the seventh of november it was 36 days since he was asked to give up his passport on the third of october. these are in public domain. you can't talk about the individual case but taking the principle out of this, and let need to seize passports in give the police powers to take passports i appreciate you have things to do but the head of counterterrorism, you referred to the bail powers we have at the moment as toothless, they need to be tougher and this must include immediate handover of passports, the condition of bail, also include making breach of bail a criminal offense and it should be standard to notify other agencies immediately. would you support the change in the law that would allow them to seize those passports when giving bail? >> i am happy to look carefully

at that. to make remarks -- frankly it that is what we need to do here. i think in this individual case the passport, was not only when he was arrested. he was limited in how long he could -- the police couldn't legally hold him while his passport -- his address was searched and had a passport been found it could debussy's but it wasn't found all of that is explanation of this individual case but the point you are making that determining nationality, seizing passports and being done more quickly is a good idea. i came from a meeting of the national security council looking at the orting national foreign offenders and this question comes up about why we can't determine nationality. we need to -- there is another

thing which is making sure that information about those on bail is automatically put on to morning index and checklists and all the rest of it. more the police can do. >> i know that you feel more should be done to take down jihad on the internet. do you support the work of anonymous indigos security group who have taken down 2,255 websites and 19,020 pages that encourage young people to fight in syria. we encourage taking down -- >> i don't know enough about anonymous to know if they're doing the right thing or the wrong thing but what i can say, we do a lot of actions, taken down thousands of pages and we have worked a lot with internet companies, major breakthroughs on child pornography and child

images and searching for decent terms, we cannot do this, is free speech. we have the same conversation we are already starting on extremism to make sure these sorts of things are removed. >> it won't be at fade. >> refugees from syria, what they might have been through, to be well received. when they came to the select committee in september, said he was trying to find a way of assuring any costs that were canceled, taking refugees into the committees were going to be

supported by government. 30 million pounds for local councils to help with their costs. been in that position, when refugees come in, counsel should be ready for additional costs for refugees and associated costs. >> it is not quite that. is a different budget, there is a terror bases from 5,000 pounds per person to 1,000 pounds per person in year 5. or as generous a system as you can find anywhere in the world, in stark contrast to what was manage under the e.u. resettlement scheme as i said the other day but i would encourage welcoming them to encourage them to build a life for themselves. they have the right to work,

statement for labor to work, and a faster a debate in the community and seek a life and the job and all the rest. >> it was a community, not to the come together but where they go to live or register for local services and they don't want to see. and in the committee specifically, or schools, or problem is what they do so easily, coming in to the education system who don't speak english or have an education. we have additional costs. >> what we are going to do is 35 years on, for future e years,

the idea that the government can say to local authorities, any and every cost that might arise, won't be the right approach. sharing the burden. we want to help and government is placing it on and play their part. the idea that you could say we will find every single element of what happens, and could be rather unfair. >> they are the ones the end up with longer wait. to cause additional places. local authorities comes forward, many of them on slow school system outside the control of local government, for english classes to get to the jobs you

mentioned, how are those of funded? you mention the accounts, but area public policy involved. >> we have will funded health service with rising budget, well funded schools and protected you builds protecting what happens if people numbers go up. we have a system in a country that is capable of welcoming, one of the reasons it was a reasonable number, 20,000 over parliament, they are capable of delivering that sort of held. think about how many people come to britain as refugees in a year, we manage -- >> areas where we receive refugees, that is just one point. can we have some reflection on the general refugees figures. currently it seems a group of

supporters, these figures show they are actually three for the secretary of the authority for that -- >> it is important. >> they are not supported so it doesn't fall on a handful of them. >> in the cases yuri refugees we are encouraged to come forward and my understanding is they did and there was a good pattern of local authorities coming forward. is a question how housing is available, where capacity is most available. 8 danga danger sometimes of alienation, isolation but we inherited the system and are operating at the syrian refugees should come forward. >> how refugees, demands on

health -- >> we set up one of those general assistance anywhere. it sounds reasonably fair. this is what it should be. and i think i am confident it will work well. >> there is still an issue in this end, additional money for health services, specifically very complex and very real needs to find their services -- i don't think that is the best way to encourage the real committee cohesion. >> another response for that. >> part of the environmental

committee, globe internationally lead to put into practice what the outcomes of the 21 negotiation agreement will be and i have to say my congratulations to those who are running up to it, so much work to achieve and broadly can be welcomeded. even those they do, unless it is more implemented year on year, domestically and internationally. what about the outcome of 21? >> i thought it was pretty good given in the weeks running up to it it was looking like 2 degrees, there had been no review mechanism, it was looking like any reference to progressive increase would be struck out and so it was also

looking like the climate finance numbers were not coming together. a lot of push didn't look that good. i was always confident there would be a deal because the fact that china and america decided to abort this time there was a positive outcome and that is better than kyoto but i was surprised by the hard work of the secretary who was their pretty much throughout. and we got that mechanism, got 2 degrees sort of to be kept in touch with and agreed there was no further ambition necessary. it was a comprehensive deal that included the countries and -- >> what do you do if eventually working up there with the european union particularly with high ambition coalition, perfect

example, of you came leadership. >> the uk played a key role in getting the e.u. to hire ambition and the e.u. was able to say to the rest of the world's the rally got big ambition in terms of the greenhouse gas reduction targets we are about to sign up to and also because europe has other mechanisms in terms of carbon pricing and targets and the rest of it. you are not doing enough and britain within that. and private finance we very much our leaders of the pack and my impression, run up to paris, the meeting i went to in september and the commonwealth, was essential because you were not going to get developing nations to sign up and they felt the wealthier countries were going to support the mitigating and

addressing -- >> what we do with international climate finance as well -- does it make you reflect at all? >> i think britain's membership in the european union has benefits where we work together for common goals and i think where we have actually been in the lead, yes. i think british -- britain take a very strong view about sustainable development. we are the only g-7 country, we take a very strong view on climate change. we have legislation put in place by the last government and accused by me in a position on climate change the we have this absolute revolution in terms of

the last government backed and financing terms of renewable energy so we were able to lead by example in these forums including the european union. >> going back a little bit. the optimism about that, over the last year, particularly the last year, conservative criticism across a range of sectors, uncertainty, straight up from -- criticism on a range of issues, and the outcome. all of those suggests there's a real disconnect between the homeland engagement and what is going on in the u.k.. >> i completely disagree. i couldn't disagree more

fundamentally. all of those people -- totally disagree with anyone who says that on the one hand britain has helped you pioneered this climate change agreement and on the other hand somehow backside -- let me talk after -- important to provide -- >> if you disagree, you disagree with -- do you disagree with the statistical analysis of most of your. shows that the u.k. on just one issue, i could pick others, the scales of the country's -- >> now we take one example? why do you say that? one example. you said you'd 10-let's take one example where britain is --

>> the question is -- >> you said -- >> international investment, the u.k. has totally -- >> i will respond. the international green groups looks at countries and their commitment to climate change says britain is the second best in the world's after denmark. that is the first thing. fatigue teams have been arrested, we had the second-best in the world. to actually looked at what is happening in terms of the wind, biomass, solar. 98% of the solar panels in britain since i became prime minister, if you want to know what is going to happen to the cost of soda, is going to be double in this parliament what it was in the last parliament in terms of investment.

soda, with the look that optional wind, the biggest offshore wind market anywhere in the world, the green investment bank is the first in the world, whether we're reinvesting in our nuclear program or the we are the first developed country saying we are going to phase out coal-fired stations, any reasonable assessment you would say britain is more in its green commitment and that is why in the last year greenhouse gases fell by 15%. this is the biggest reduction in a single parliament and the current estimate of 8% reduction for the previous year is one of the things that is a record for single year. >> well prepared to defend -- it could be something. a relative issue.

whether it is appointed to the committee -- i quote directly, i tell folks to fled it with relatively inadequate, to ever be -- do you agree with that? >> we need to do more. 200 year events happen in 2013, 2015. in terms of capital -- >> only recently appointed, it will never be -- >> we need to do more. better river management and the way whole great engine area

systems work, we have a cabinet meeting this morning where we discuss this and a team of ministers who are absolutely on that. the military came in more quickly, the flood prevention we put in place something like 20,000 homes. and an attitude change in years gone past, and balance effects on nature and the one hand and protect property on the other hand. the time for that is over. this is not protecting human life. is about protecting our homes and i want to see that continued shift and we see that directly in somerset. it is of man-made environment and ridiculous those rivers were not being dredged and i threaten to drive the dredge myself with those rivers of been dredged.

we absolutely -- >> fundamental change do you feel as a prime minister who is committed to environmental things, does it stem the tide by short-terming that ainge we have a prime minister, a tragedy -- >> i don't think that at all. we came into government to make difficult decisions and a loss of departments that were established -- major spending reductions in the darling plans. when it came to the budget we decided to wait than normal in. do we need to look at more needs

to be done? of course we do because these are very serious events. i have seen that myself. is what the reviews are about. >> continuing with clement unwanted active this noting -- looking at what was welcoming. he wanted. to be known for its warm humanity and willingness and an inspiration for many communities. one of the cases he made before the action, 70,000 fighters.

new fighters or existing fighters we were talking about. >> the best estimate by the joint intelligence committee, non extremist opposition that we are fighting largely against chuck hagel one. in answer to the question, the select committee, what ground troops are available to coordinate with in terms of this campaign against daesh. that was the best dancers they could provide. >> talking about 70,000 fighters or existing fighters. >> they were existing fighters. >> in the battle space.

20,000 additional kurdish fighters on the ground. and direct answer for the select committee what ground troops were available. >> let me handle this two days ago, though military defense monitoring the british airstrikes, 72 to 81 civilians and they would -- civilian deaths -- >> the information i average at the time we held the debate. i correct myself if i get it wrong, at the time we have the debate we had that ancient in iraq we didn't believe there had been any civilian casualties because we took a careful approach to minimize whatever we

can, but if people make allegations we must look at them. >> the reporting 72 to 81 as we mentioned? >> if people make points, we have been very careful. >> thank you. going back to what was mentioned earlier, the ruling of domestic energy policy is for the objective of 21. >> it may be a massive contribution, britain has the most advanced climate change legislation consisting of climate change, and budgeting in any country anywhere in the world and we made good on not only having all this data but actually meeting the budget time after time. we reduce greenhouse gases by

62% since 2010. if you look at what we have done on loci and energy under this government in this parliament we are doubling our investment to 11 billion pounds. we have one of the largest solar installations for almost any country, we have the largest market, we wanted to . >> we said we want to invest to give them a chance to get going. at the end of the day, if you're going to meet time of change tar gets, you've got to have renewable energy. we're well underway to deliver that sort of outcome. the massive commitment we made to climate finance, the

legislation, the recognized by this international body. renewa energy, nuclear because >> let me tell my committee about the work that has been done or not been done by the 2020 target, leadership across government to in short 20 targets by the department of transport. >> she makes an important that the which in my role, to make sure we're taking action across government to meet the targets and deliver low carbon at the lowest cost. the point she is making is important intervention in heating and transport, the approach we are taking with carmen, low emission, the electric and vehicles we have been subsidizing. i was in munich, the absolute right approach increased

investment, 2 billion pounds. >> the problem is what you have got, different sectors, transport, housing, eating, and electricity generation, and we are overperforming on electricity generation, we are going to meet on targets and more. some areas it is less easy because markets are not developing the weight we would like some to. and is taking some time. i wish the price of electric cars was coming down so that people could afford them and cut their motoring bill. .. i wish electric cars were coming down so people of a more modest income could afford them. you've got to adjourn what's happening in the markt. what matters is the reduction in the carbon, not exactly where it comes from.

i think you should be looking at these in the right way. >> the comfort to my committee that was received in october, an example with confidence. the government is continuing with support in competition. it was up to 1 billion pounds. but a moment later, it was start. >> there's always the criticism. i would arguef youook at the last government in this

government, have poured money into these technologies and we've made some big advances. you do have to think as prime minister every penny i put into these technologies is a pain that goes on someone that -- a non. right. let me explain to you get to the spending review and get to look across want of a committed to spending our money on. it seemed to me carbon capture and storage, while i believe in the idea because we can take the carbon out of gas, you can have gas plants that are relatively cheap but the economics of the moment really are not working. carbon capture and storage, a billion pounds capital expenditure. a billion pounds we can spend on flood defense or on schools. that's a billion pounds we can spend on the health service. even have to spend a billion pounds that doesn't give you carbon capture and storage that is competitive in the market. i looked into this because --

>> the last eight months -- >> the point is they have not been approving. we hope the cost will come down. here are the calls. i think this is my to the committee to understand this. you spend a billion pounds on carbon capture and storage. you get storage capacity and it would cost you, current estimates something like 170 pounds per megawatt hour. that 170 pounds, that compared with unabated gas costing 65 pounds, onshore wind perhaps costing 70 pounds. nuclear costing say 90 pounds. as things span can he put the billion and you can't spend on flood defense and then you've got a 170 pounds, full 80 pounds more than nuclear, almost more than twice as much as gas and that money would go on bill papers bills. so it seems to me that the right

decision will be not go ahead with a billion because we could spend that on other capital investment projects, including energy projects like making progress on energy storage or modular reactors. >> onshore wind would be cheaper sake of fat as well. in the manifesto, a for the promise to scott was in scotland -- all options were possible. you still stand that a? >> what's happening with onshore wind, the cost has come down and it doesn't need to have the expensive subsidies. if you look at what it is come and go from nine gigawatts to 13 gigawatts and 2020 so there will be an increase. i say all of these decisions are decisions that you put money on

bill payers a bill. so this criticism which i think that's part of life. why do you do more of this and more not? what's the cost and what's the benefit? >> it's the cheapest. >> onshore wind, the cheapest is gas at 65. onshore wind 70, solar 80. >> what about the target's? >> we are more than meeting our targets. that's the whole point. >> you would get that with the wind or carbon capture. >> we spent -- >> you are up for a nap times that. >> we are confident the energy makes, nuclear, renewables, castle more than meet the targets were committed to. >> make this a very quick finally.

>> in the referendum you said weeks before the referendum scotland -- [inaudible] he says on the 10th of september. >> and we delivered on that. we delivered on the with the smith review and that's exactly what the process after the referendum had none of the amendments -- >> i think -- >> smith was delivered. >> order. prime minister, the renewable energy i would suggest a lot of land is being used for solar farms especially if you take -- i think we've done our fair share. are you very keen on tidal power? i think we've got the second highest rise in worker i think we could increase our amount of renewable without actually taking good-quality land to put

solar on. >> instinctively i can see the strength of the argument for tidal power. one of the problems with renewables is can they provide base load power. nuclear can. we and can't but tidal can provide the path. the problem with tidal power celebrities at the moment we haven't seen any ideas come for word that really can hit a strike price in terms of per kilowatt hours at a very attractive. that's the challenge with tidal. very long-term schemes, big investments abroad, they can last for many, many years but right now my enthusiasm is reduced by the fact that the cost would be quite high. >> it's got a high capital cost but i think you'll see over a great number of years you'll find the cost per power is naturally limited and not inexpensive.

>> obviously we have to look at the features as they come out. i say, i think for tidal power has got the permanence to it. there are great sort of important economic benefits. i totally see all those arguments and exciting prospects. you've got to come back to what the action i take, what will that do to the security of supply into the cost of supply? all the arguments about renewable fuels have asked yourself what is that going to put on -- >> can i take you again come yet answered on flooding. and i congratulate you on the work you did in somerset? for years dredging of the river, kidding the water out to this he was always not answered the way for by the private agency. you came down as prime minister and blocked the. you've been to the north of england every much supported action there.

i commend you for it. i think what we want to see if you look at successive governments they start off by having lower flood defenses and there's a lot of blood that goes up. i think it happened to between 2010-15. i think what we actually need is continual support. i think perhaps you would agree we look at exactly what we are doing with flooding. the one in 50 years flood, the one in 100 years blood when they happen every six or seven years he you ask him about the mapping right. that's dividing the year by 100. that does not work. i think what is your plan, what is your long-term vision like a long-term vision for the economy? what is the plan on flooding? it seems to be happening more often? what is the plan? >> a long-term plan is if you take the last three, this parliament and the last two, the

spin has gone from 1.5 billion to 1.7 billion it will be over 2 billion or quit no set a six-year spending period so we really can plan the investment we're going to make. a big part is building those capital schemes. another part is mickey shorter it's not just government money. you were getting partnership. it's made a big difference in many parts of the country. we protected the maintenance, vital maintenance spending in real terms. but i think there needs to be a big effort right across government to look at everything you can do, whether it is making sure agriculture policies consistently, flooding policy, consistent as i said earlier, there's attitudinal change. where we were dealing with some levels we brought in that touched and said how do you do with these man-made environments? you have a zero-tolerance as a were on flood. tell us how we can do better.

they said get on with the dredging of all the rest of the. i think that is attitudinal change but it is difficult. when people say don't build more houses and a flood plain. london is a flood plain. some simplistic answers are not possible but a big attitudinal change, a big investment program, they partnership fund and a long-term commitment to do it. >> some of the riverside be dredged to get the water faster out to see. other rivers yet to hang onto the water longer. so, therefore, the farming practice perhaps planting trees is necessary. at the moment most of the compensation to farmers is loss of profit and it's not very much of an incentive for farmers necessarily to actually produce that land end user for flooded. what i would like to see, much more proactive policy where farmers are encouraged more to take on that water, manage it and be part of their farming practice rather than being

forced so we can use more of a carrot. >> i think that makes good sense is you've got to plans for the whole area. someplace that we dredging, speeding the water up, take it away from other places. everything from upstream attenuation bonds and farming practices to try to hold onto the water, to better flood defenses in urban areas, all those things did work together. i was the environment agency in my experience over the last five to 10 years i think they have improved a lot. i think the early warning systems are better. i think other action on the ground and to work round the clock christmas day is much better. their attitude toward the dredging has changed. >> are you convinced that attitudes for dredging has changed? ipu go down to make sure it happens and then after a while it stops raining and environmental agency recruits.

that are many rivers in britain where not all needs to be dredged them in places you've got a bridge we of the main bridge and yet the two pipes on either side of it that are completely silted a. and, therefore, we've got to act toronto britain through maintenance work get that sorted. are you convinced we have changed? >> i think it is changing. i think the new chief executive is doing a good job. we now need a new chairman and -- >> perhaps the dutch german. >> we have great dutch this is people working britain. my personal epiphany was i to consider the case where some farmers dredged a stream until being taken to court for destruction of wildlife. i said this is ridiculous. environmental agency, farmers anyone else interested by the banks outside the river and i said it doesn't look like to me

you did anything wrong. environmental agency said that would've destroyed the habitat of waterfalls. two appeared in conversation on film. i looked at him and at the moment of the argument was settled. >> my final question is really to make sure that that attitude is taken across the country and that the environmental agency partners power down to local policies, local farmers, local land owners so we can make the money go a lot further and be much more practical. if there is a tree in the river, a shopping trolley and the colbert let's have somebody, locally and do the work. >> i don't want for us, there was of the review that was done by pet. i don't want us to sort of go back over all that and try to reinvent the. i think we of the budget all of

that and i think that's the right approach i've look carefully at what you said. >> thank you very much. while you are looking at goals, perhaps you would also look at bats, snails, which is slow to work one time or another. before we finished i would just like to bring us back to foreign affairs briefly. >> we find out u.n. security council resolution 2249 which describes islamic state in iraq in the levant as constituting a global and unprecedented threat to international piece and security. we've had a number of questions about trying to constitute a military force that might take on and also initially about the politics of their time to put together, the international agreement. the bottom line is isil have to be taken out of control of that

part of syria as well as iraq. now, former chemical biological and nuclear regiment, the most others argued if the army still succeed in this, then we must be prepared to commit our own tanks and infantry to this battle with the russians, americans and others. and if that wasn't the case, he says, i would expect could run a isil in a matter of weeks. aplenty for this eventuality needs to start forthwith so it can be ready in six months time if required. what are we on planting to make sure that the international community in one form or other has actually defeat isis by meaning taking territory away from it and syria? >> i don't agree with the person that you quoted that this is the right approach. i think the strategy we have may take longer but i think it's the

right strategy. in iraq you can see the growing confidence of the iraqi security forces. the fact that they took ramadi and 30-40% of the territory that isil, that daesh had stuck on. and syria is going to take longer and is more difficult but i think he will be counterproductive to deploy western troops, boots on the ground in the way that you put forward. so i don't think that's the right answer. even in syria if you take what happened since september, the action that we have become part of in september us to get something like 25% of the oil revenues of daesh, taking out 10% of the revenue overall. i think growing confidence that we can push back daesh, confidence in the right that our forces we can work with on the ground, and then a political track and syria, that relies on the fact that in the end we need to build as i said many times in the debate, the author moderate opposition forces we can work without a into what we want to

work with is a syrian transitional government that can help us as greece based out of existence. that will take longer than the sort of approach you take but i think will be a lot less counterproductive. >> thank you very much. we been going to waste 90 minutes. i just want to raise one point that kristin and i both are concerned about the you have heard of the diplomat who rotate first rate description of what -- would look like. he wrote that in a personal capacity. v1 uprise -- >> the prize by wilson speak with yes, that was the one. it is indeed a very good report, oath foreign affairs committee and treasure would like to have a word, since he's written such a good piece of work. but, unfortunately, we have

received a rather stiff letter quoting these -- >> motherly rule. this is a topic of conversation. i have to remind myself exactly what they are. >> well, i'll tell you what they are, prime minister, and i can assure you i won't come there aren any rules actually. they are what you feel at any particular time. >> i like those sorts of rules. >> so do we when you come before us, prime minister. in this case this man wrote this report and it personal capacity, and we are being told that is not committed to give evidence in a personal capacity and we would like him to come along. >> there's a problem with this. the government hopes to reach an agreed that recommend position which i hope will be britain stays in the, a reformed

european union and i will be the position of the government. and the civil service will work to that position if of course position if of course with built in our negotiation and reach a different position, the civil service will have to work for that position. >> there is a personal capacity. >> there is a personal capacity for ministers to be able to campaign against the agreed government position, that there is one civil service and the civil service will be working for opposition -- [talking over each other] >> you discuss it with yourself and come to your conclusion. >> mr. mansfield's right, publish it and win a prize. and what we would like to do is take oral evidence am also in a personal capacity. we think that's reasonable. you are saying he would have to speed it up wasn't aware of this case, but there's a very clear position.

the government is going to have a recommend position to which the civil service works. i think that is, that's the sort of principle and basis on which i will make any decision including this particular request. >> okay. be very grateful if you would take a look at that. it's kind of you also did a great that you would reflect on harriet harman's claim, you look at when all that information held by ministers will be released to able to do a proper job. yuma county agreed that you investigate making these individuals and churches often detect refugees, and also look at tightening up that they'll roles to ensure that passports seized quickly from those. and you a great you look at claims from independent monitoring bodies that uk strikes of course, this is a

point and gives me between 70-80 civilian deaths in syria. we are grateful to you for agreeing at the meeting to follow up all those point. thank you very much. >> a number of letters -- >> and we are hoping quite soon. >> i think, i am prepared to think about things in calendar years at i think this calendar year, as i said, i am here now, the beginning of the year. i think between easter and some another been spent in one in the autumn that i think calendar year, that's what i'm planning, but if you want to ask and i'm always happy to have -- >> thank you very much for coming in this afternoon. we appreciate it. order, order. >> c-span takes on the road to the white house and into the classroom. this year our studentcam documentary contest asked students to tell us what issues

they want to hear from the presidential candidates. follow c-span through to the white house coverage and get all the details about our studentcam contest at c-span.org. >> the senate yesterday rejected a bill sponsored by senator rand paul that would require a financial audit of the federal reserve. the senate voted 53-44 ailing to get the 60 votes needed to advance the measure. is part of the debate including remarks by senator paul and how democrats sherrod brown. this is 15 minutes. >> i rise today in opposition to secrecy. i rise today in support of auditing the federal reserve a rise in opposition to the lack of accountability at the federal reserve, an institution that has for too long been shrouded in secrecy. the objective of the federal reserve transparency act is simple, to protect the interest of the average american by

finding out where hundreds of billions of dollars worth are going. the federal reserve has the ability great new money and to spend it on whatever financial assets it wants whenever it wants while giving the new money to whichever banks it wants. yet if the average joe and jane from main street printed their own money, they would be imprisoned as counterfeiters to nowhere else but in washington, d.c. would you find an institution with so much unchecked power. creating new money naturally lowers interest rates or the price of using money. put another way, the federal reserve unchecked printing press creates a price control on the cost of using money. throughout our country's history price controls have never worked. and the feds price control on interest rates has also not worked. think back to the housing

bubble. artificially low interest rates led to many individuals buying, selling and investing in the housing industry. this in turn led prices to soar which ultimate led the economy to spiral down to the great recession in 2008. since the 2000 a financial crisis that has increased its balance sheet from less than $1 trillion to over $4 trillion. although the fed has created trillions of new dollars, it has become apparent that most of this money is not finding its way into the hands of average americans. from 2009-2012, the incomes of the top 1% increased by a whopping 31%. while everyone else's income increased by only .4%. the reason for this is simple. big banks, corporations, and government entities receive the federal reserve's money long

before anyone else. and a bit of the prices of assets before the rest of us can get to purchase them. former federal reserve governor once referred to the fed's easy money policy as the reverse robin hood effect. if you have access to credit, if you've got a big balance sheet, the fed has made you rich. this is a way to make the well-to-do even more well-to-do. a side effect of this uneven distribution of money is painfully apparent to anyone who shops at a grocery store. over the past 15 years the price of white bread has increased by over 50% while the price of eggs has more than doubled. the cost of housing has also appreciated significantly in many areas. when adjusting for inflation the price of housing in san francisco has increased by 50% over just 25 years. real household income for regular americans has declined

10% over the past 15 years. higher rent and higher grocery bills cause lower income workers to incur more loans and credit card debt which involve far higher interest rates than what the banks and wall street are currently paying. these low income workers do not get the luxury of receiving the fed's newly created money first, nor do they have the luxury of receiving the near zero interest rates at the well-to-do. as a result one thing is for certain, the feds price control on interest rates acts as a hidden tax on the less well-to-do. the fed also exacerbates income inequality by paying large commercial banks $12 billion in interest. this is a departure from nearly a century of practice. while individual savers are in practically no interest, the big

banks are given $12 billion per year in interest. there's a revolving door often between the fed, the treasury and wall street. it's a revolving door in the building that is all too eager to enrich big banks and asset holders at the expense of everyone else. i think it's about time we pull back the curtain to uncover this cloak of secrecy once and for all. who is receiving the loans from the fed today? who is the fed paying interest to? aren't any conflicts of interest about how these payments are determined? aren't any checks and balances on the size of these payments? the federal reserve act actually forbids the fed from buying some of the troubled assets that it bought in 2008, if they did it anyway. given all these unanswered questions and given the sharp increase in the risk of the fed's balance sheet, it is unquestionably necessary for the fed to be audited more thoroughly than it has in the

past. audit the fed is just three pages long and it simply says that the government accountability office, the gao, which is a nonpartisan a political agency in charge, that they be allowed to audit the fed. a full and thorough audit. currently the gao is not allowed to audit the fed's monetary policy deliberations over the fed's open market committee transactions. the gao would -- was also forbidden from reading agreements with foreign central banks during the downturn of 2008, trillions of dollars were spent, much or quite a bit of it on foreign banks, and we are not allowed to know what occurred, to whom this was given and for what purpose. the feds ought in its current form is virtually futile. when these were added in the 1970 the gao testified before congress saying, we do not see how we can satisfactorily audit

the federal reserve without the authority to examine its largest, single category of financial transactions and assets. to grasp just how limited the current audit is, recall that in 2009 democratic congressman alan grayson asked been fed chairman ben bernanke which foreign countries receive $500 billion in loans from the fed? bernanke was unwilling to name which countries or banks received a half trillion dollars worth of fund. that's right. the fed swapped a half a trillion dollars to foreign countries in secret and did not even have the decency under testimony before congress to report the details. but it gets worse. democratic senator bernie sanders also asked ben bernanke who received $2.2 trillion at

the fed lent out during the financial crisis? again, bernanke refused to give a direct answer. in the 2011 dodd-frank law, congresswoman pashtun congress limited one time jail audit the fed actions. during the financial crisis that audit uncovered at the fed lent out over $16 trillion to domestic and for banks to the financial crisis. thank you got i ask unanimous consent for an extra five minutes? >> is there objection? [inaudible] >> the senator from ohio. >> does senator paul have as much time as we have? >> i would be happy to ask for the same time. >> i only need five minutes ally willing to cede whatever remains so you will have enough time but i would like to reserve five minutes for my objection.

>> unanimous consent would become five extra minutes indicatand togive as much time o conclude. >> without objection. the senator from kentucky. >> both republicans and democrats agree that it is absurd we do not know where hundreds of billions of dollars of our money is going. in fact, lesser may audit the fed build receive the support of nearly every republican in the house and over 100 democrats. some say an audit will politicize the fed. i find this claim on, given both sides of the aisle support the bill. the gao is nonpartisan, independent and works for congress but it does not lean republican or democrat, and it is not interested in influencing policy. i can't seem to understand how a simple check i the gao to ensure there are no conflict of interest will politicize anything. >> instead of criticizing a

standard audit know, maybe the individuals who work with the fed and within our central bank should begin curbing their own actions. unlike the actions of current fed officials may bipartisan bill will not politicize anything. i simply want to overseeing come the fed overseen to ensure our central bank isn't picking favorites. i don't want to ensure that it remains solvent. like every agency the federal reserve was created by congress and it is supposed to be overseen by congress. auditing the fed should not be a partisan issue. regardless of one's monetary policy views, regardless of whether you think interest rates should be higher or lower, everyone can and should agree that for the sake of the country's economic well being we need to know what has been going on behind the federal reserve's cloak of secrecy. it's time we quit this guessing game for it's time to audit the federal reserve once and for all to restore transparency to our nation's book your thank you,

mr. president. >> mr. president? >> the senator from ohio. >> i would like to oppose audit the fed. one of the things around it we learned as members of the house and senate, and i served with the presiding officer almost my entire time and house and we all learned is that if you can name the bills rhetoric and get a tremendous advantage. call the estate tax, the death tax into about 1% of americans pay it. he may have won the debate call this the audit the fed and how can you be against auditing the fed? at this time i don't think so. i'm concerned, i'm concerned in this way. won't make the fed stronger, won't make that more effective, it won't make the fed more accountable. it will impair the fed functions. it will give conservative members of congress more tools to second-guess the fed's decision making and makes this is the ultimate must sound, flexible and responsive. to think about what happened in

2009, president obama took office after losing 800,000 jobs a month. congress passed the recovery act, passed the otter rescued which matter so much to the presiding officers of state and my state, and the senator from kentucky. but then with a change, the elections of 2010 this congress engaged in austerity and we saw what that meant. it took a bush appointed federal chairman bernanke who engaged in enough pump priming if you will through low interest rates and then do we get the economy going. would we want a, then ask yourselves ask yourselves what we wanted a federal reserve then we're congress has its tentacles in monetary policy? congress failed its fiscal policy. chairman bernanke and now chair yellen have had to move on

monetary policy in that way and i don't want a straitjacket this congress. straitjackets the federal reserve by doing that with congress. i know some of you support audit bills in the past of many supported the dot-sanders amendment during wall street reform but this is different. it doesn't include provisions to review the intimate foreclosure review program. it doesn't include protections on some of the sensitive information that gao could review like transcripts. what this is about, mr. president, in addition to congress meddling in monetary policy is older like this. we know that the fed is charged with a dual mandate, to balance them to do with the tension between combating inflation and combating unemployment. we know that in past years that that has landed far more towards the bondholders and wall street and combating inflation that has towards meanstreak employment and combating unemployment. we also know that with the pressures in this town when

president obama signed wall street reform, the chief lobbyist for the financial services industry said it's now half time, meaning that conservative members of this congress, people in this congress influenced by wall street would try to weaken these rules and going to the agency's. we will see the same thing here. we will see congress, many members pushing the fed to side with the bondholders and wall street, on combating inflation rather than siding with main street and small businesses and workers and dealing with unemployment. that's fundamentally the biggest problem with the paul proposal. i ask my colleagues to defeat. >> we are live at the hudson institute, and we are bringing you remarks from house homeland security committee chairman

michael mccaul. is expected to talk about threats from terrorists at home and abroad. is expected introduced by the ceo of hudson institute who is hosting this discussion. we are learning that it could be a few more minutes before this gets underway. the committee chair running just a little bit late, it will have live coverage here on c-span2 when it gets under way. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> again waiting for the chair of the house homeland security

committee, congressman michael mccaul, expected to talk with homeland security and the threat from terrorists at home and abroad. running just a couple minutes late but we understand he will be here in just a few moments and we will have live coverage on c-span2. right now more debate on the senate floor on auditing the federal reserve. this took place yesterday. >> [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> we apologize. sorry about the technical issue. it looks like we've got that straightened out. still waiting for the house homeland security chairman michael mccaul to talk about terrorist threats. should appear here at the hudson institute in a couple of moments. we will go back to the senate floor yesterday and debate on auditing the federal reserve. >> thank you, mr. president. thank you, mr. president. i rise this moment to speak about the legislation that will

be considering this afternoon, specifically my understanding is we will be voting on a procedural measure which will allow us to take up legislation that is commonly known as auditing the fed. i wanted to address this. let me start with the context of, i think is important to think about when we consider whether or not we ought to change the relationship even modestly that exist between congress and the fed. it starts for me with a simple observation that the financial crisis of 2008 is over. and actually ended a long time ago. spent a number of years now -- it's been a number of years now that our financial system and our economy has not been in the eminent crisis meltdown mode that it was in an a fall of

2008. in fact, for several years now we have had meager but we've had some economic growth. our banking system has been massively we capitalized. there is no current or imminent wave of bankruptcies in any segment of the economy really. and yet despite the fact that we are clearly not in a financial or economic crisis, we have crisis era monetary policy. policy from the fed that one would expect to occur presumably only in a crisis. and that very, very modest change in fed policy, the movement and the fed funds rate from a targeted zero to 25 basis points to 25-50 basis points is arguably the most modest tightening in fed history.

you couldn't even begin to suggest this is a tightening of monetary policy. this is just a very slightly less easy money policy. that's what we have. so in my view, there are huge dangers and problems that are associated with the fed pursuing this completely unprecedented and i would say radical experiment in monetary policy. and i want to talk about a few of those this morning, mr. president. and one of the first and clearest problems is because the fed has cut interest rates so low for so long, the fed has caused a big miss allocation of resources, this undoubtedly caused asset bubbles that are existing today that would not have occurred had it not been for the abnormal wanted to policy. take for instance, sovereign debt markets. in many, many countries especially in europe, we have

debt issued by governments and the return on those instruments is negative. in other words, it doesn't cost the government money to borrow money, which is normal. you have to pay interest to borrow my normally. in fact, the government gets paid to borrow money which is ridiculous. it's happened in the united states as a result of this fed policy. >> the other one, the homeland one.

>> [inaudible conversations] >> good morning. i'm ken weinstein, president and ceo of hudson institute. i'd like to welcome our audience here at the conference center, ambiguous at home on c-span to hudson institute. we couldn't be more pleased to host this special event which is

actually the penultimate event we're going to be holding your at our office space here on 15th street, officer silva we've been in since june 2005. this is the last award and featuring a member of congress before we move to a state-of-the-art facility at 1201 pennsylvania avenue. i can't imagine a more fitting speaker for this event than the chairman of the house homeland security committee himself, dedicated public servant and a great friend of hudson institute, congressman markham -- mike mccaul of texas. we here today to talk national security, more specifically homeland security. and homeland security is a topic of significant concern to us here at hudson institute. over the past year we've released a number of major studies on the issue, believing one being a blue ribbon commission blueprint for biodefense. a commission that was co-chaired by senator joseph lieberman and governor tom ridge that looked

at the challenges we face in meeting the immense threats of bioterrorism or of biohazard, and the commission's report garnered significant headlines and with the subject of hearings in both the house and the senate. and i know that we briefed chairman mccaul on the findings of a report and briefed a number of other important figures on capitol hill. we've done work also on cyber defense, on cyber terrorism and cyber enabled warfare. of course, all of us as americans were saudi remind last month in san bernardino that oceans are no longer enough to protect our country to give our enemies away. isis continue to control vast territory in these terrorizing people of those countries while planning attacks against the u.s. and its allies. at the same time we obviously

face a major crisis on our southern border, drug epidemic in this country with drug cartels an everest even terrorit groups seeking to exploit weaknesses at the border posing many challenges. in cyberspace we see the continuing, we fighters is increasing on the defensive against russia and china whose capabilities of hacking and continuous activities pose challenges to our governments and to our major corporations. and at as san bernardino showed socially is a is a powerful tool fofor groups like i said to continue to do is so much on. today we get are from a man who sits at the center of oversight on this universal threat, chairman mike mccaul of the house homeland security committee. it's a real honor to welcome you to hudson to get you misrepresented texas 10th congressional district since 2004. before entering congress as a federal prosecutor and served as

chief of counterterrorism and national security and his attorneys texas offices. throughout his career he's been focus on the many threats we face as a nation and he is the author of a book that i highly recommend reading just published actually on monday, failures of imagination, but at least threats to her homeland and how to thwart them, a book that is quickly rising up on the best seller list if we look forward to welcoming the congressman back to discuss the book in a couple of months. and i want to note that we at hudson are proud to work with the congressman in sharing some ideas that are included in the book and especially about is the fact the congressman is just donating all proceeds to the wounded warrior project which makes the book an even more worthwhile gift are worth reading. hutson has long been a home of individuals who seek to solve tomorrow's problems today so it is especially fitting that we have chairman mccaul with us today to address these issues.

without any further ado let's welcome chairman mike mccaul. [applause] >> well, thank you, ken. i want to thank the hudson institute for hosting this. also thank you for your great help on the book that i just wrote that as you mentioned the proceeds will go to wounded warriors and their children. and it's about failures of imagination which if you look back to pearl harbor, look back to 9/11, the 9/11 commission talked about how that was contributed to what happened that fateful day. and it's a point of discussion, a point of discussion i think of 2016 presidential debate. it was designed to do that so that we can see the threats as they really are. and how can we best deal with

those threats. i was here to speak on the president's remarks last night state of the union, and i must say, i guess not surprisingly, the lack of emphasis on what i think is probably the number one issue now facing the nation. and that's national security, the safety of americans. and it's a threat that we see from various points across the globe from isis to iran to russia, china, cybersecurity as well. most of the chapters in the book are devoted to each of these specific threats that are out there. and i know it's been said already but i thought i was first what is it last night it was more of a state of denial of what the real threat is. almost harken back two when he spoke about isis as the jv team.

i think last night he said it was political hot, political rhetoric and they're running around in suvs and pickup trucks operating out of apartments and garages. really not still seeming to understand or emphasize the threat. it's always puzzled me about this administration wide emphasis is not on national security. why the emphasis is not on homeland security. in fact, those words were not mentioned last night, homeland security or national security combat all. we heard climate change quite a bit last night, and at the very end he addressed national security issues but did not, in my opinion, deal with them head-on in a truthful and honest way but rather an attempt as he has throughout his administration to downplay the

threat. it's puzzled me as a former counterterrorism official in the justice department why he does this. the only explanation i can think of is that it would never fit with his campaign narrative, the narrative was to end the war in iraq and afghanistan, and to close down guantánamo. he did mention guantánamo last i. you mentioned the fact that he intends to release the prisoners from guantánamo. people to are probably the worst of the worst and that concerns me a great deal. i think when isis came about, you can blame, people can blame prior administration for going into iraq, and i understand some of those arguments but i also think the way we left it, iraq was stabilized without a status of forces agreements the and without any engagement with prime minister maliki.

in fact, went to baghdad went on for three hours in her three years as secretary of state of the condition imploded and out of the ashes came isis, formally aqi in iraq. we have safe havens. we have power vacuums all throughout northern africa and the middle east that are now really haven for the terrorists. and the threat in my judgment is not decreasing. it's not downplayed. in fact, it's getting worse not better. the facts don't lie. when you look at the number of foreign fighters, 25,000, 30,000, now 35,000 foreign fighters from 100 different countries, actually 120 now different countries throughout the world. 5000 with western passports, hundreds of americans that are traveling and coming back. this all in my judgment poses a

threat, serious threat to the homeland. i met yesterday with the police chief of san bernardino and the sheriff who were invited by their member of congress to sit at the state of the union. and i was really disappointed, president never recognized them. he never even recognized the fact that san bernardino even happened last night. he didn't recognize chattanooga. he didn't even talk about the terrorist attacks. to me that was a glaring absence in a state of the union speech that was largely about the economy and his legacy, but little that have to do with national security and foreign policy. and i think that's because his

record is lacking. i think his record is not his legacy, even though he doubts the iran negotiation as one of the greatest achievements. i think his legacy at the end of the day on these issues is not going to be his strongest suit. and perhaps that's why he downplayed it. i continued really to be baffled by the fact that he doesn't address these issues head on, assuming americans are concerned about. i will say on a positive note because i like to be although that balanced in my remarks, will be the last i guess -- here we anticipate would be about his legacy. his call to action on cancer, nih funding and conquering cancer, and comparing that to

land a man on the moon, i would argue to the next presidential, to all the presidential candidates, but that is a worthy achievement. that is something that i would like to see elevated to the presidential campaign. because i think it's so important. my wife sits on the board. i passed a childhood cancer the result in the first childhood cancer drug developed since the 1980s. we had nih funding increased and every significant weight in the omnibus. and i think that innovation and the what nih can do in terms of scientific achievements and the cures act that we have we passed in the house, that's in the senate, we can do some great things for the american people and the world in terms of curing

diseases. but i think we have to presidential candidate that takes on cancer and the challenge to conquer it would be well advised. ..