immediately playing on the notion they are replacing it with better people and whether they believe ten or not or believed that he could fulfill that or not they were prepared. pakistan's ambassador to the u.s. spoke at the center for strategic and international studies about the current state of relations between the two countries. this is an hour and 15 minutes.

it is a privilege to be cohosting this with my friends over at csi s.. we are going to be having a conversation with the ambassador of the islamic republic, mr.'s s aizaz ahmad chaudhry. with 37 years of experience in the foreign service, he was the secretary of pakistan and he is a graduate of tufts university and had a very interesting and distinguished career basically all the big jobs with the ambassador of the netherlands and we are very fortunate to have someone of his caliber representing pakistan at this

time. we are at a challenging time for the relations between the united states and pakistan. we are aware of all that, but i think we need to talk about the challenges in our relationship and the thing is that needs to be addressed and then we also want a conversation that opens up on a number of things that don't get enough attention. we will turn over to the ambassador. please come up it's an honor to have you. [applause] >> thank you all for coming to the session and for organizing

this event. it would be my pleasure to share with you by talks on topics you've suggested to us. in the last one month. i like that you start from that. last month, you all will recall the united states government, the administration unveiled its national security strategies which have given the united states a set of priorities and identified. the top of which is occupied by china and russia have been

ghosted to north korea. where it was sort of competition and the primary concern for the u.s. administration and identified again as the overgenerous powers that be the centrist and trying to displace. also of course reinforces iran and north korea. there are weapons of mass destruction and terrorism.

it appears that it is picking up a announcement on the calculations on what are building up. i believe it was a letter already in the making. in the last two years, they were suggesting that it was led by the united states. you all remember how they came

up with the pieces of disarray. it is now in flux about the change. he didn't know what it would come out to be. then thomas edison came up with the prediction that the united states and china might be destined for more unless they come up with these decisions not to enter. we had another book that talked at great length about the new

rebalance. before that, the longtime statesman from singapore suggested it wouldn't just be another player but perhaps the biggest in history and that would require a new balance. they respect that progress in the global information simultaneously come busting and compressed not to 300 years but 30 and that would require accommodation.

so, that means that they reorganized into the time had come to make an adjustment and see what was happening so so many people had already started talking about computation if you want to use that term from the rise in china. thabut was it only in this doma? i think it is happening and others. look for ex- ample free trade is the best for everyone it is a

win-win solution now under threat. immigration or immigrants for centuries i would say was always considered fresh blood in society and was welcomed to mingle and learn from each other and is now being viewed as an economic or security threat. the global consensus is also under question and the nationalism which was a major issue so xenophobia, islamic phobia and the likes are also

now raising their heads so clearly the world is changing and has changed. we still don't know where it was finally settled. if i zoom in to my own issue where the country is located, i don't see the situation much different. india and china are what i would call an easy piece. india and pakistan from afghanistan situation continues to deteriorate and iran, the

nuclear deal that was negotiated so painstakingly after a long time to herald of that as a victim of diplomacy so in the portal that is changing and we don't know where it is headed but certainly more turbulent, south asia again, the turbulence is visible to. and that larger context i believe that they fight back. we were in the eye of the storm and remained there for a decade and a half.

in pakistan the last couple of years for the consensus is not acceptable. it's the type of terrorism that has been the worst, the militants are on the run.

we need to deal with that and we will do with them. so that is the situation pakistan has done in the last two years. the investment is coming in from all of china but also from europe and elsewhere in corporate america.

there is still a lot of work to be done. i'll be at risk unless they stabilize and that's where i would like to bring my relations with the united states. this relationship is pretty important to us and has been for the last seven decades. we believe that it must be. currently it is under stress but

i believe this is because in the united states sometimes the country is looked at from one lens or another. since they are not making progress in afghanistan they could actually be up against a failure. perhaps it is because of pakistan and therefore to view them in that narrow lens sometimes it is viewed through the lens of china perhaps being close to china isn't going to be friendly with the united states. sometimes it is viewed through the lens that india now is a strategic partner for the united

states and is expected by the united states to play a larger role and is not worthwhile to maintain relationships and sometimes it is also broadly from counterterrorism security. i believe that this is a very narrow approach to a country the size of pakistan or the potential of pakistan. this topic has given me this one is that i think is so apt and relevant because pakistan should be seen for what it is and not through these four lenses that i talked about. and that would happen. there are two levels to see how the pakistani and u.s. have a

good relationship. one is the governmental level and the other is people to people. it has oscillated between the ups and downs and the number of areas in which the people of pakistan and the united states remain connected and have remained connected. i was telling you in the other room the united states is the

home to a large body of pakistani physicians many of whom are interested that they would continue to come to this country and serve here. the united states is a steady partner and very few people know about it starting from the 50s and 60s when they were producing the green revolution in pakistan. until now where they are still very actively engaged. i know millions who are connected virtually and are

connected to the development of the technology base. it gets on the side because the conversations tended to reduce. the issue at this time is afghanistan. the united states had arrested billions. this situation is deteriorating and some would say it's close to what it was around 9/11.

never again would we allow them to be used as a safe haven by militants who could be there. is it any closer or not. how should we go forward and is pakistan responsible for the failure. all of these are question.

how is it that we can broaden it, strengthen it and with new areas can we bring and how can we broaden that glen lens. thank you for your attention. let me begin by you are a graduate of the school of tufts university and for those of you in the audience but don't know the mascot is the elephant or the jumbo.

as one looks at the last decade and a half, pakistan has made countless sacrifices. in blood and treasure you go to the u.s. experience in afghanistan and in its struggle against militant i was in pakistan for example. we saw that damned close and very cognizant of the thousands of soldiers and intelligence professionals that have died over the past several years and

they've had to deal with bombings in other cities. certainly around this town both democratic and republican government and senior officials from u.s. agencies continue to point a finger at pakistan for providing support to some groups but certainly not all. they rape the issues in the network which have the command and control structures the pakistan side of the border. they gave safe haven with little help and no more than the u.s. president said recently. also it is worth noting u.s. officials will also argue that

they will regularly denied this in public and private, but the few may actually believe this line so i want to give you the chance to respond to these concerns and issues with at least support to some militant groups to be fair they do provide support to some state and nonstate actors. with my own personal background in the u.s. military so can we have an honest discussion about this and how you respond to this broad discussion.

until 1979, there was no such thing. but the 1979 the forces came in to pakistan and the united states and pakistan came up with the concept to provide an army of militants who fight. they stayed back in afghanistan and after 9/11, once again, the united states came to focus on that area and other places that were bombed heavily in the paper

asked to make a choice whether they want to be a part of the coalition to fight them or not. pakistan made that choice and thereby thought that pakistan needed to be attacked for their activity, and that is the time about 2002, 2003 that they began to turn their guns towards pakistan. either on the military or the intelligence. from 2004 to 2014, all hell broke loose.

we used to have 250 incidents per month on average. all of the politicians that got together held the political conference and forge a national consensus that said we would not allow any [inaudible] from underground. i want to also tell you that the militants who came to the tribal areas had a very simple

narrative which somehow found enough traction. we got rid of them and today it is being offered and we will get rid of that. that was a simple narrative and this is jihad supporters. you have to have and equally strong and effective countermeasure to expose the flawed nature of the narrative. because if you are killing innocent people on the streets and in schools, that means it

isn't duty, it is terrorism. killing 137 schoolchildren, and the soldiers and officers. when they moved in, they moved in not only because they had to do it as a national duty but also to rid ourselves of [inaudible] the voice from the far right of the spectrum came and we almost swept through and we cleaned up all of these and whatever else

there was. today if you don't hear or see any such thing it is because we eliminated that. so when somebody tells us, we say to them please show us whe where. .. serviceman support those people. [inaudible]

it's not so. pakistan is happy, we are happy. we paid a huge price but we are happy. we are still happy because we were able to defeat them. those who need to know, they know it. they have gone to afghanistan. the taliban and her connie have run. our messages you should join the political mainstream. you should not be in pakistan. we will squeeze all the space on you by denying them accommodation or whatever else and they are very much going there. since we keep hitting this

from some of the security authorities, it meant the people of pakistan believe perhaps. [inaudible] in the last four years, we have improved the situation and according to your own reports, every six months it is going into the hands of the militants. it is a huge territory. by would they live in pakistan where we are breathing down their neck. they can plan whatever they need to plan. they are not short of funds. $400million. it has increased according to your own reports, since 911,

300 times it has grown. there are other players that have come in. they are ready to work with them. so, when we compare the two situations, pakistan and afghanistan, people in pakistan say why why are we being. [inaudible] are we responsible. is the failure only because the sum total of the problem in afghanistan? what about issues of government and capture being abducted by national security forces who then go. [inaudible]

and green on green attacks and green on blue attacks which are growing. i'm not quoting anything from my sources. i think people feel that perhaps we are the bogeyman that has to explain why $600 million has not solved the problem. these are the questions that keep coming up. we are having those conversations and constantly telling them look, turn who would be left holding the bag. it's us that have suffered. 3million of them.

today those camps are being used to preclude afghan terrorists to clear trouble in pakistan. therefore, what we are saying to the united states, that is your state of objective and your real objective. we will suffer from it. please do not scapegoat us. do not place all the burden on us and we want to work with you because we think there's work to be done. we think afghanistan needs help and stability and we are ready to work with you but we will not place the full blame on pakistan. >> thank you investor. i want to signal to the

audience that we are going to be taking cards and taking questions for q&a. will write them up and have a conversation for about a half hour so if you have questions we will collect them and read them. we will collect five or six of them. master, let me ask you a couple questions. what i've said to my friends and colleagues i think we need to have a broader conversation with pakistan, many people say you're crazy. why do you want to work on this issue, why do you want to work with pakistan, there's a lot of distrust in washington. everything i heard you say, i know you are speaking with great passion and great believe and i believe you, but there is very little trust

here in washington i think it's reciprocated in pakistan. there's very low trust between our two governments. there is so little trust that statements are not being believed. what do we do about a situation when we don't trust each other and, is it fair to say, is it possible to say that what's going to happen that the pakistani, is that one thing for the government say one thing, i heard you say there's a before-and-after what happened when the schoolchildren were killed and there was a moment in pakistan, i know that for fact. there's the pakistan deep

state and so what's your reaction. >> you both have deep states by the way. >> that's become an overly used term recently in our discourse. the search is this issue of trust? is part of it, is it fair to say, what you say if someone says it's one thing for the civilian government to say thing but there's a whole other game going on. what's your reaction to that? >> i have heard this so many times but this is not true. we have made it a point. [inaudible] you need, and you will hear the one and only narrative. to prove the point, when

secretary tillerson visited pakistan a couple months ago, the entire leadership set together to meet him so that this view which is often propelled in the u.s. by vested interest to drive a wage is addressed. this time around when president trump made a tweet on the new year, we decided not to respond that day at any individual leve level. >> i'm sure it was a very long day for you. >> it was late afternoon in pakistan. the next day, the national security committee which is comprised of the leadership, they prepared and measured a response to that.

i think gone are the days where people can say all right, we can drive this wedge and sell our narrative. that's not going to happen because they are very conscious that this is what they tried too. we are saying to you whatever, it comes now directly from the full endorsement and most of the statements that we have now issued including the response of august 21 by president trump and also from the same national committee. the people of pakistan are highly proud of our armed forces and our other

securities for the piece that have given to the people of pakistan. we said this was not our war, it was imposed on us but having been imposed, the leadership decided all right, if it is imposed, then bring it on. and we did. i think today you cannot find. [inaudible] we are all speaking with one voice. what is our message? you started the question with trust. the message that we have is that we mean well. we need peace in afghanistan. we have achieved successes and we can repeat and learn those lessons. we think a peaceful afghanistan will serve us well.

we think the united states and pakistan can work together to achieve common milestones. if you don't hear about al qaeda today, an organization that was responsible for 911, it is because pakistan and united states work together, day in and day out the decade after to eliminate al qaeda. there's no reason the two country should not continue in the same spirit to finish what they started but if the path chosen is not working together, i am afraid the first of the shared objective and defeat of terrorism will not make that much more progress.

this is the message coming out. we achieved a lot and we need to work together to finish what we have started. that is what we are trying to convince. not to place blame one against the other. >> we want to turn to trade issues, both regional trade and broader global trade. if someone looks at initiative , it's significant and includes upwards of 60 countries, 4.4 billion people, 40% of the world's gdp, everything from rails and roads and pipelines and

projects an important component is the china pakistan economic corridor. i wonder if you can lay out what pakistan's vision is for regional trade and how that sits with the role of china, as you noted earlier the national defense strategy has labeled china as a competitor. what is the vision for regional trade and how does that sit with u.s. development up efforts with a country that's now viewed increasingly as a competitor. how do you think through those issues. >> china has always been afraid of pakistan ever since china became an independent country. not once ever was there a

share shared. [inaudible] the relationship has continued but mostly at the political level. the translation into tangible economic has happened only recently. the economic transformation in the shifting of priorities ever since president xi jinping came to power is important to bear in mind. the chinese were experiencing exploding growth, when president came to power in 2013 they mobilized to domestic consumers and for equity in the investments and

economic development of the people. it came to light that the western part of china was far less developed in the eastern part. they were exporting billions of dollars of growth and the emphasis began to shift. about the same time we had a change of government in pakistan in the present government came up with this idea that we have economic priorities, the pakistan china corridor existed but there were mountains that prevented that. the two governments took on the challenge and started

connecting across these two regions. it was a win-win option for pakistan and china. for china, if you want to come to the mediterranean, you probably go 5000 kilometers and another 8000 kilometers to come here said it would make sense that you use this link. [inaudible] that would link china to europe so that is what actually pushed governments to move in that direction. it was also the underlying

emesis that the net gain will not be restricted only to the people of pakistan and china. but, in good times this should bring prosperity to us. in fact the thought of extending it should become peaceful because if you go up north, the benefit. [inaudible] it makes economic sense to get into that project. this did not mean, it meant a whole lot of physical activity. it included fiberoptics and lifelines. it is still happening.

most of these investments are now almost completed. we used to have what we used to call blackouts 15 or 16 hours a day. >> in the entire country. >> yes. >> and we used to have only 1100 kilometers. [inaudible] have a new set of roads and i would like too, i should've brought that book. like to show how u.s. and pakistan work together to

change the entire area. >> that's because of the united states. >> with cooperation with the united states. the united states is already a partner with pakistan and china. most of these projects which are being done, general electric is providing. [inaudible] the technology. in the last few months alone, if the american companies, they are all situating themselves to benefit from what's about to come up. >> and just to share for this group, what was the growth rate in 2017 for the last couple years, don' think people know. >> they've improved to 6% for

2018. >> last year was over 5%. it has been constant in these massive investments allow us to move on to make special economic doors along the corridor and we think it would be very helpful if the united states stayed engaged. corporate america is a really making up their own mind and we want them there. we had these good relations, they believed that people like me, that our relations with china and the united states. [inaudible] we've had relations since 1949 when they gained independence and with the united states since 1947 when they became the first country to set up an

embassy in palestine. i think we go back in time. we think united states should stay engaged, there are millions of ways in which we have stayed engaged and economic investment is the most important. >> i want to pause for seconds and my friend chris who's here will be collecting cards. so if you walk down the aisle he can collect cards right now because they need to collect those cards and sort out questions. let me turn too, if i may, there's an election in pakistan there were several things i want to mention about this. one is that there has been, there's a perception in the united states of heavy military engagement both

economically and politically in pakistan, but it's notable in my mind that there have been several moments where the military has not left its barracks so the one thing is, for the first time since 1947 there was a democratic decision, one democratically elected to another. you mentioned it earlier, i think it's something to note and i don't think many americans appreciate. there's been several moments when the military could have come out and done something antidemocratic in the sense of having a two and that has not happened. so then ambassador, correct me if i'm wrong, i think i'm up on pakistan current events. there was a number of judicial decisions made in the past 12 months about the leadership in pakistan at the current government mandate is ending

in several months so could you just comment on the current domestic political situation given what i've described, and i'm not necessarily sure i want to ask you what your bet is that what will happen, but if you could just talk a little bit. >> you can if you want. there are bets in uk betting parlors about this but if you could just talk a little bit about the elections coming in what does that mean in terms of some of the things we been talking about. what does it mean in terms of economic activities and on a number of different fronts. i think it's important, going back to what you're saying, and alignment of the civilian government in a natural. [inaudible] there are some things that could change.

i think the grain of people pakistan is democratic. the reason for that is the person who loved this, the great leader that we call him out of respect, he was a man deeply committed to the rule of law. he led the entire struggle in a democratic fashion. therefore, it is deeply ingrained that we have to follow that route. it is true unfortunately that our democratic process was interrupted four times what the people of pakistan have become wiser that that was not in the interest of pakistan. since 2008, it's very likely

to complete. i think it's almost there. there are also lessons that people of pakistan are beginning to learn from this. they are beginning to learn that democratic processes are noisy by definition. everywhere. we are no exception but noisy does not mean disruption. and second, they have been assured by the leadership that the only path forward for pakistan is the democratic election. i have personally met the entire leadership and i came out stronger in my conviction that everybody wants this democratic caucus to continue.

i also, being ambassador to the united states i believe this is yet another area where the values of democracy and rule of law and freedom and liberty that your country has advocated is a beacon of light for everyone including my people because they also believe in these values which are supreme values of democracy and freedom and rule of law. i think we are moving in that direction. we are getting there. as to who would make it. >> i'm hanging on your every word. >> no problem because i would not be an ambassador. [inaudible] [laughter] i believe in voting. i voted last time and i will

vote this time. >> can you vote overseas. >> we can. we get our option about a month or two in advance to do that. we're trying to work out, overseas pakistanis cannot vote. but certainly we are all excited about the elections. i think it should happen and that's the only way democratic governments should go forward. >> you think will get to questions in a second. two-part question, the first is really brief. based on your answer to the question about trade in china, what is your response or what was pakistan's response to withholding of aid in the broader context it is a tiny drop. how do you respond and what

was the response in general the u.s. decision to temporarily freeze aid, and more broadly, i think your broader issue that you noted up on peace in the region is important and i wanted to turn to that real briefly. what i would be interested in are what are your thoughts specifically on steps of how pakistan and the afghan government and the u.s. might take to ensure peace in afghanistan. it's driving the drug trade and militancy. what are your prospects for peace. what role should pakistan play and what about other regional players. is the u.s. doing enough to support the peace process? >> just to remind you the

first is the u.s. decision to withhold aid and the second by the peace settlement talks. >> we think that the figure of aid that was reported in the tweet which was $32 billion, half of it was the reimbursement that the united states was to make to pakistan in lieu of the expenses we had incurred in pursuit all of common, predetermined objectives to fight terrorism because the rationale. [inaudible] was that the burden sharing would be doing the same but that reimbursement has been dispelled on one account or

the other. too that extent, about a a billion dollars is the amount the u.s. owes to pakistan. then there is economic assistance for education health and others and security cooperation. the economic assistance over the years has also gone through nongovernment channels through agencies and the government of the people pakistan don't know where that money has gone. there is a big reaction about what it was that they were doing in pakistan. frankly, no one in pakistan has commented about the

suspension of aid. we have actually said we don't need aid. our leadership has said it will not many words and said we don't need that kind of transactional relationship but a relationship based on mutual respect and trust. that is our response. what is it that we can do together to bring peace? we think we first must come out with the conclusion that there is no military solution. if there was, it would've come by. [inaudible] a well resourced effort would've achieved.

we think that is not the route that should be taken. a comprehensive political solution in afghanistan is required. it basically means allow the people of afghanistan to engage in a serious reconciliation, the nations all across the world to go that route. in fact there is already a book that makes reference to that in one of the analysis. [inaudible] they suggested that a peace agreement be made but his

advice was not taken in 58000 american americans, this is exactly what happened in the people of vietnam were able to build that, make progress and become a friend of the united states which it is today. many people feel this is the route the u.s. could take in afghanistan with people yearning for peace. they have been suffering some type of military solution. you have to have general reconciliation and the people of pakistan must support that. second, we should also.

[inaudible] we don't want the people that we are pushing, who we believe should come back. in any case, there are bad guys who live and can do bad things and therefore we have to integrate that cross body movement. on this humongous price,. [inaudible] we started in 2016, we should be done by 2022 and then will be setting up 900.

[inaudible] to control the border but we cannot do it alone. we need support from afghanistan to do the same on the other side. we believe, we are proud of the hospitality and now the security, that should also be part of the solution and i think there should be a regional consensus not to use it to achieve your own political objectives. for example, india has been given a roll by the united states which we believe india is using to create a double squeeze situation against pakistan. therefore the thing, engage in

the western border and remain engaged or if they can be used by others. we think there has to be a regional consensus not to allow anyone to use it to create instability or to advance political agendas. i think that's also an equally fortified decision. >> investor, i have several questions from the audience. the first relates to the issue of is there a timeframe set up for afghan refugees to return. you made reference to it earlier. >> i'm not aware of that but we issue what is called. [inaudible] , we think there should be

serious negotiations between the governments to make arrangements for them to live in afghanistan on their own land and the money they receive here should be given to them to build their lives, but for that there should be a full sector. how do you create that. when he came to power he had made references to giving land ownership rights to those who come back. i don't know whether that has been followed through. together the community is using its resources to allow

them. [inaudible] i think that should benefit everybody. if they remain unstable and they continue to run for their life, many will come to pakistan and others will go to europe and elsewhere. i think it's only fair to the people pakistan that we take a very sympathetic view of the situation. >> let me say on this issue, the afghan issue. [inaudible] in order to get this assistance back, is pakistan willing to do that? that is one question. and then the other end is what level of influence does pakistan hold over the afghan

taliban? >> pakistan would very much want to push the taliban through afghanistan. we don't want them to bring them to our country. we think they should join the political mainstream and we will continue to move on that part. regardless of whether the u.s. has a decision on aid or not. we don't want to be transactional in nature. this is a step we are taking in our own interest regardless of the assistance. in our own interest and in the interest of peace. let me tell you that for two consecutive years pakistan made enormous efforts to bring caliban to the table.

the first was in 2015 and a night long session during ramadan, they first sat face-to-face with representatives of the government. because. [inaudible] i i was moderating. chinese and americans were there as observers. it was a tedious effort and we came out with a joint statement and then we were planning to meet before the month iran out to come up with a set of deliverables but on the 29th of july it was leaked by a security establishment.

[inaudible] and then there was commotion as to what would happen in the taliban ranks and we did not really know what would happen. another year past. a fresh attempt was made and they came together and we made another attempt. this time we were negotiating who had become the leader of italian and we had five sessions and in the first week of may we had the session in which we agreed all four countries would go back to the taliban and come back to exchange notes and on the 21st of that month. [inaudible] after that pakistan believes

that we have lost any leverage of the taliban. they see that we push them to a situation where they feel betrayed. nevertheless, we don't want to give it up. there is a meeting in december and i think they have been able, we don't know where finally goes but we know the only way forward is for all four countries to continue to exercise whatever effort they have. >> have two other questions. given the animosity, what's the prospect of energy cooperation between india and pakistan. of course india is a neighbor

of pakistan. we need to have good neighborly relations. for that to have, both countries stay involved in a dialogue but at this point in time, leadership feels they are not ready for a dialogue with pakistan. their view is that pakistan needs to take action against the militants that live in pakistan and if pakistan is supporting terrorism i tell my counterparts that we have done more than any other country to defeat terrorism and we will continue to do that in our own interest because of the commitment they've given to the people of pakistan but when you suspend the dialogue, you actually give those militants what they want.

every time they come together, something happens and they sit back and wait for the next time you come together. so the objective of the militants are being served. what should actually happen is exactly the opposite. they should stay engaged in work together to reduce its militants both in palestine and india. i think it is a problem that we need to solve by cooperating with each other. >> there is a question about what is pakistan's vision, what does the vision for the future, that sort of how i take this question but maybe a

little bit broader or more specifically, it refers to see pat, this is the china economic order which has been a real game changer. it was very notable to me given it was the price tag of $50 million of investments. talk a little bit about a positive scenario, economic and political social scenario for pakistan. maybe that would be a way to get the question. you might also talk about how does the u.s., what's, there's lots of scenarios, thinking 15 or 20 years out, what are your hopes for pakistan economically, socially and politically and how does china and the u.s. fit into it. all in three minutes.

[laughter] i have. [inaudible] investment that the chinese have brought pakistan, both of them are in the private sector. these are joint ventures between private companies in pakistan and many of them, many of those projects are also participating. i believe that the future that i see of pakistan is a pakistan that is friendly to both the united states and china. i think that is the only future i see for my country. we go back in time. it would be such a loss if we were to squander such a deeply dense relationship because we

don't see eye to eye on one particular issue. i think it would serve both countries well if we continue to look for solutions for pakistan, the united states and china. >> thank you. please join me in thanking the ambassador for being with us today. [applause] c-span's "washington journal" live every day with news and policy issues that impact you.

coming up tuesday morning we look at a new report on the diminishing role of facts and analysis in public life and how it threatens policymaking and decision-making. also some of the challenges facing the national park service. also the latest on resolving the government shutdown. be sure to watch c-span "washington journal" 7:00 eastern tuesday morning. join the discussion. mike pompeo will speak at the american enterprise institute on tuesday about intelligence and national security as well as global threats. watch our live coverage 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2. joe biden discusses u.s. russia relations in washington. we will have his