make a path forward on both securing borders and dealing with immigration reform. we've got issues with high-tech workers, agriculture yal worker. it seems like the president is driving a wedge between the white house and congress in doing this. my understanding you worked with the bush administration on immigration reform. >> it is basically saying to congress, good riddance. i will make immigration law myself. it is you all are the ultimate judges but from my perspective it is hard to see how this would enhance the likely hoofd cooperation from congress.

>> and arguing for a very broad interpretation of prosecutorial intention. do you believe this broad of interpretation, does that leave us anything with take care clause or is this just an orphan clause in the constitution? that has no meaning if we take this broad of a mission? >> i think it is what the court and cheney said. when have you nonenforcement on such a broad-based scale that you are in essence not enforcing the existing law. i don't know what is so confusing about prosecutorial discretion. a lot of you have been prosecutors. >> i learned it in law school. you don't arrest somebody for speed together hospital. >> i was a tax lawyer and we would say, based own resources, we won't try that particular case.

>> my friend mr. labrador, i will yield the remainder of my time to him. >> were you working with the white house on june 6, 2007? >> yes i was. >> do you remember what happened in the senate when then senator obama decided to vote for poison pill limit that killed the entire immigration bill -- >> it was immensely frustrating. it was immensely frustrating for us for months and in some cases years. >> in fact president obama who was a senator had gone to the white house and looked at george w. bush and then he went to the senate floor and killed immigration reform. then promise eted the american people that had congress house and senate with democratic hands

and did absolutely nothing. this has always been a political issue for this president. it has never been a policy issue. thank you very much. >> thank you mr. chairman. the same way prosecutor yl discretion, i will set up here, thank you so much, i didn't have the good fortune of being able to go to law school. i never met thomas jefferson or madison or washington or franklin. sometimes they take us down memory line like they are your first cousins once removed. i admit to not having gone to law school. so i'm not as prepared as the gentleman may be on the questions of law. but i've worked harder than anyone here, at least as hard as or harder than anyone here to work with republicans. they keep inviting me.

it'll be next week, luis. here is our principles. then they say, just kidding, i didn't really mean it. they keep testeding us and teasing us about immigration reform. we're going to do it. we're just not ready right now. the fact is, the speaker called the united states in juchb this year. despite your efforts, we're not going to call the vote on immigration reform. let's just put aside the fallacy that this is disruptive to a system. it is almost as though you're coming here to tell us oh, you are on the pinnacle of success and had the president not acted we would all be con vined to do kpre helpsive immigration reform. the fact is, this is just not reality. let's deal with reality. when we were working in the senate to pass a bill, we passed a bill here, the sensen brenner bill.

they criminalized every priest, every teacher, every doctor. that was the response to the senate bill. so let's get it clear here. every time we sat at the table and said, look, tell us what it is going to take, they refuse act. it is now 23 months into the year. and we have not seen any legislation taken from this commit tooet house floor that isn't taking 800,000 young and making them illegallies one again in the words mif colleagues. not having met any of them, you want to say that, you didn't have a few people that had the privilege of meeting and working with so i can't go back 200 or 300 or 400 years when you discuss -- i can go back to november 4 of 19 the the. i will try to read a little bit of it. there has been widespread agreement that some deportations, unfair and

resulted in unjustifiable hardship. if the facts substantiate the presentations that have been made us to, we must ask why the ins pursued removal in so many cases when so many other serious cases existed. we write to you because we believe people, you know that discretion to alleviate some of the hardships. the principle of prosecutorial discretion is well established. regional council have taken the apparently well rounded case law that ins prosecutorial determination of removal proceedings. furthermore a number indicate they employed this discretion in some cases. true hardship cases call for the exercise of such discretion. over the past year many members of congress urge the ins to develop guidelines for the use of prosecutorial discretion. guidelines for the use of

prosecutorial discretion. let me just suggest to you i never met george washington. never benjamin franklin. i know you like taking us down memory lane with the founders. but i did meet henry high. i did meet lamar smith. i did meet mr. mccollum. i did meet all of these gentlemen that have signed this. and let me just say that henry high, lamar smith and mccollum and others that signed this aren't some open border open to border friendly concept open to that. they wrote the attorney general and ins commissioner and said, prepare guidelines. let me just suggest to you, that idaho has 1.6 million people. we deport 400,000 a year. it would take us, if we just spent all our life in idaho, it would take us the next four years, we are not going to deport ourselves out of the

issue of immigration reform. we are going to have to find a solution. i think we should roll up our sleeves, and begin to do the work of fixing the immigration problem because we have not put one more person on the border to secure our borders nor have we helped one more family. and i would just end with this, mr. chairman, you know, i didn't go to law school. but it just seems to me that justice is about compassion too. it is about fairness. it is about looking and weighing equities that people have. and i think 4 million american citizen children we should take into consideration. because guess what, tonight my grandson, he is going to be taken and my daughter is going to his school and go check out his report cards and be able to take him to the library. she's going to be able to help him with his homework. she is going to be able do a lot of things.

take him to soccer. there is millions of undocumented immigrants that can't do that for their american citizen children. let's stop. nothing has been resolved here. >> gentleman, your time has expired. >> thank you so much. thank you for your indulgence and generosity. >> the one part i would agree with with my friend just now is the fact that amazingly after a wonderful speech carried by many that everything was supposed to be solved a couple weeks ago because the president acted, undoubtedly, we are far from that. this is concerning on many levels. the problem i have, the biggest part here, is the fact that this has gotten mixed up into immigration and we are using immigration and using the stories of hardships. and i can understand that. but problem is the fundmental take the issue away.

remove and just go back to the simple idea of what the structure of government is. that's the problem that i'm having here. and also, from across the aisle that if we passed bills in which we have, they never moved out of this committee, i'm not sure why pli friends across the aye are concern had, they didn't vote for any in this committee. they wouldn't have worried about them on the floor of the house. also, the reason most of us believe that this is a really political issue for this president, is because when he chose to overhaul the health care system, chose go after big banks, when he chose a lot of other priorities, you know what he didn't choose as priority? he did not choose illegal immigrants. he did not choose immigrant community. he did not. we can complain all we want about differences of opinion. the issue comes now that we can do it.

i'm in my last term and i don't like what congress has or has not done. and my question is this. i'm pondering this because i did sit through law school. i'm proud i did sit through law school, and i haven't met george washington either. but books and stories have told me about rule of law and it matters. the reason you are coming is rule of law. take immigration off of it. look the at balance of power. define for me policy change. >> policy change? >> yes. you use it quite regularly in your brief. >> sure. under again what the department of homeland security has done. has said in the past we are deporting parents of u.s. citizen children. >> as an executive order of policy change? or prosecutorial discretion? >> prosecutorial discretion.

>> so you say to not do something is under prosecutorial discretion. >> just technically the president hasn't issued an executive porpd he ordered executive actions. all directives by department of homeland security. again completely consistent with the homeland security act. >> in looking at this, take it away, and i know you can't because this is also a cause for you, and i get that. take immigration out of this. what is the limit here? and you sort of blew off my colleagues who said about tax law and other things. you came across that. so you just say, no, i can't have it. tell me why i can't. many people said, 40, 50 years ago on different issues or 20 years ago would have said there is no way a president would blanketly take a group and just do away with it.

and even put up you know and hide it under, here is an outline. why is it not conspiracy theory to think that any president, republican or democrat, can use this as precedent? >> so again i believe that president is actually following the law, constitution statutory regulatory framework. and what the president has done here is the same that previous administration has done. in the future, take the immigration out of this if it were tax law, labor employment laws. >> why didn't he do it before the election. >> we knew it is a political issue. he clez to go after the election. >> would you say in the short answer states have a good argument for -- >> with the potential plaintiffs

they have the best argument. >> very quickly, those currently legally in line and it is taking forever with their legal applications and out in same officers, would they have that understanding. damages have to be found. also in reference to my gentleman from illinois, the letter that he stated, minor detail here, it wasn't dealing with legals, it is legal relevance for a ross says for them. that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you. i thank the witnesses for their presence here today. let me just start with mthere a 11 million undocumented residents under the united states. >> yes, sir.

>> resources are to take the undocumented immigrants, true? >> yes. >> the department of homeland security doesn't have resources based on what congress allocated to it to deport those 11 million undocumented immigrants, correct? >> absolutely correct. >> since we established factually that there is no way dhs can deport 11 million undocumented immigrants because it does not have the resource dose so, it's got establish priorities as it relates it deportation, true? >> absolutely correct. >> okay. now who actually has the authority to establish those priorities. is it the secretary of homeland security and the president who eye points them? >> secretary of homeland security are authorized on case by case basis. >> but we can't -- first of all, this is not a group exemption and i think that's just been a

blachk et misrepresentation. i think many of my colleagues have corrected it. but at least five factors that individuals will have to prove, right? documentation will be required to demonstrate that. you can't just show up and make that representation. >> that puts you in the class. reclaiming my time, i'm not finished. >> sorry. >> qualified child. you have to demonstrate that. >> correct. >> passport, whatever the case may be. documentation. continuing presence p. again, documentation. not an enforcement priority and five of course you have to pass a criminal background check. if rs those are all individual factors that will be assessed by the department of homeland security. to determine eligibility, correct?

>> now in terms of ---sir? >> yes. >> you're answering questions. we appreciate whatever thourt are bringing. >> i appreciate it. >> but you are not the definitive authority. in fact what the supreme court has said and let's touch on that, the arizona v united states case has been brought up. are you familiar with that? >> yes, sir. >> do you believe this case in any way contributes to the discretion of deportation? >> no. the conclusion of the supreme court was of course that authority and states cannot override immigration authority that is federally eye nunsated. >> justice kennedy stated in the majority opinion a principle feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials. immigration officials must decide whether to pursuit removal at all. correct? >> yes. that's what justice kennedy

states. we have established that the resources don't exist for department of homeland security to remove all 11 million undocumented immigrants. true? >> yes. sn. >> so consistent with supreme court decision written in 2012, in immigration, not fda matters, not other collateral matters, on immigration, establishes clearly that the department of homeland security and this president has the ability to make priority determinations related to deportation. isn't that clear? >> over a state determination. it involved sb-10. this is a very different situation with due respect, congressman, to a situation where there a blanket creation after class now protected outside of congressional authorities. the answer to your question is pass a law. >> i agree with that. president agrees with that. since president eisenhower in 1956, 39 occasions, there's been

executive action related to deferred enforcement. it happened under eisenhower and kennedy related to approximately 900,000 cubans. happened under ford with approximately 200,000 vietnamese. happened under president reagan, i think as to aprokproximately 200,000 nick rog wauns. happened under george bush. 43. with liberians. and of course it happened under the first president bush with respect to 1.5 million undocumented immigrants. correct? >> yes. >> but you don't believe this president has the authority? >> i've stated very clearly, i thought, that i'm not convinced in all cases -- some cases were involving foreign policy issues where the president does have tlort. but i stated in my testimony as especially relate together

situation with presidents bush 41 as well as with president reagan that i think it is constitutional suspect as well. >> thank you. time has expired. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for being here in this filibuster style proceeding. you've heard that since congress didn't do anything that he today act and i just want it set the record straight, in july we had a bill to deal with border issues that was viciously fought within our party and and there massive corrections made and if we didn't have everybody, we had close to everybody in party vote

for the bill. about 10 or 10:30 friday night the end of july. we did pass a border bill and i hope whoever advises the president will be able to tell him that. but they have these pesky fences between us and get together president. i've advised the head of our cis and secret service was here testifying recently, that since we're told fences don't work on the southern border we need to remove the fences at the wlohit house. i've been perplexed. the president also said that in essence, if you've been violating our laws for five years or more, you're our kind of people. we want you here. if you're new at violating the

law, you hadn't been violating it for a full five years, you're not our kind of people. we want long-standing law breakers. can anybody explain to me why we should have a preference for people that violated the law more than five years as opposed to maybe new law breakers? what's the advantage of law make sners. >> individuals who have been here for a long time have u.s. citizen children and are paying taxes, property taxes many of them are small business owners et cetera. they are contributing to the economy in our country in many ways and have u.s. children. they are invested in our country. they want to be americans but there aren't any legal chan else to do so. and the conversation about the lack of their 11 million people and this administration has been to according to many people more than any others, 2 million

people -- >> so you are saying those things don't afpply to people wo have been here less than five years. if you didn't violate immigration lawless than five years then you don't want to be a citizen or have the advantages here? >> no they are saying that they are going to consider recent entrance. a higher level priority. whether i agree with that or not, that's what administration decided. their discretion as executive branch again under homeland security act and it needs to balance a number of factors. so unequivocally, administration has -- >> my time is short and i'm still looking for the rational for saying people violated the law more than five years or more but the five ksh year figure triggered remembrance as well. meeting with immigration officials inening lnd in recent years and we're told they have a firm standing law in the uk paid

into their british system for five years. you're not entitled to any british benefits at all. would there be a constitutional issue if we were to pass such a law? >> i think that congress has authority, there is standards both for naturalization and supreme court said with troord immigration that it rests exclusively with congress. i think you could set standard. we have in the past, the country has done that. >> i agree. >> and you wouldn't see a problem if we passed a law like that. you have to pay into the system for five years before you could participate. >> i would had that actually the majority of the people here have been paying into the system. paying approximately 8 billion, $9 billion into our social

security a year. >> there is plenty of evidence here like the child tax credit. there is much more back than they paid in. my time is expired. i would urge lawyers in the room potential for litigation since he thinks he has the right do this and he is a constitutional professor in chicago, seems like maybe his student have a legitimate class action for their money back. i yield back. >> i want to first say witnesses described this action by the president as unilateral and also claiming the fact that it could be removed at any moment. somehow undermining its legitimacy. any executive order is unilateral.

that the definition of executive order. so the notion that this is somehow not legitimate because it is unilateral is an argument. it could be repealed by this president or another president, i think those argument that have been passed by this member of the panel and it is neither enlarged nor limited by the words of the president. it is dictated by the constitution by decisions of the supreme court of the united states. correct? >> yeah but executive action incorporate what the president said -- >> but the constitutionality of the action is not determined by the description by any president. it is by what constitution permits and what the decisions of the supreme court, correct? >> yes. >> okay. so the supreme court actually spoke to this question in arizona versus the united states. and they said, a principle feature of the system is

exercised by immigration officials. federal officials as an initial matter must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all. they go on to say, discretion in the enforcement immigration law embraces immediate human concerns. unauthorized workers trying to support their families for example likely pose less danger than smugglers or those trying to commit a crime. so the united states supreme court in the most recent decision about the use of discretion and in the context of immigration set forth both the right of the federal government to a discretion and even suggested some fact is to consider in the exercise of that discretion. you have said in your testimony you keep using this term blanket approval. but what the president did in his executive order is a series

of factors which if satisfied would entitle that person to deferral of deportation action. and that means a determination as to each of those factors. the fact that in fact those are a common set of characteristics doesn't make it a blanket. it makes it still requires an individual case by case determination which is all that is required of the exercise of the discretion. now mr. dupre, you said in your testimony and the testimony today that what disturbs you is the different for pass ice by other presidents and it is not consistent with the will of congress. even mr. accept lof agrees it is not relevant. it is either constitutional or not. it is actually less in scale than president bush's which covered 42% of undocumented people. this covers 35. so the scale argument doesn't work.

secondly, you say that it is inconsistent will of congress. when in fact in president bush's use of executive order it was in the face of clear express congressional disapproval of what executive order did. and in this case, president obama's acting in the absence of expression of congressional action. so this is completely undermined. correct? this is -- mr. dupre, this is to you. you say the scale of president obama's directive significantly sees what past presidents have done. untrue. you then go on moreover in prior incidences, consistent with the statute of congress. again disagree. >> my view as to scale, is if the president said or secretary of homeland security said if i'm exercising my discretion not to remove in one individual, clearly a permissible -- >> that's not what scale means.

you're not talking individually, you talk about the scale and in terms of quantity or number of individuals filed. the point of it is, the scale of this is considerably less than even the most recent action by president bush. and the reality is this hearing is not about the authority of the president. what we are doing is delaying action, to persuade the american people not to take action because this president failed to pass immigration reform. rather than having a hearing about what to do about that we have a bipartisan bill that passed the senate that if it came to the house floor it would pass and we spent four or five hours where legal expert could t pontificate about their own opinion when it is very clear from every legal scholar i've read that this is permissible. that there is precedent for it and there is entrance to the record and a letter from two

general counsels as well as general council for immigration naturalization service which concludes that they wish to express their collective view that president's actions are well within his legal authority. with that, i yield back. >> chair recognizes the congressman deisn't a oes. >> we hear that congress hasn't acted so the president needs to act but let me ask you mr. dupre because you were in the bush white house, if congress declines to enact a bill that the president wants, is there anything in the text history or structure of the constitution that says that because congress refused to act that the president's article two power somehow augmented where he with go around congress. >> no, sir. >> that's totally foreign to our system of powers, correct? >> that's correct. >> and bush would have never said well congress voted down my bill. i will legalize people on my own or work permits, correct? >> that's correct. we are faced with with virtually the same situation as president

obama was faced with. we acted very differently. >> the thing is, the house, we considered doing a thing on the house of this gang of will bill and it didn't have have a lot of support on our side because the budget office said would you have more immigrant under the bill. one estimate is 7.5 million more. so that problem was not involved at all. t the ise union said it was worse for u.s. citizens. and senators who vote ford that most of them lost this past election year. let me ask you this, i may go after the heroin dealer. probably not going after the pot smoker. but what i don't do is issue the pot smoker a permit to where he can keep smoking pot. how does this idea of conferring positive benefits on somebody fit into the idea of prosecutor yl discretion? you may have to set priorities

about who you enforce the law against but where if the doctrine does it come from where you issue a work permit and social security number. >> you're absolutely correct on that. and in the context here, it is one thing to do prosecutor yl discretion as you said on particular offense in a particular case. it is quite another as you just said to then award a particular benefit. in this particular case, the grapting of work authorization is a substantive benefit which allowed under certain circumstances but there is not one of the categories upon which the work permits if you will is categorized. despite everybody's protesting on both sides of this, the reality is there's a reality after clash here. i would like to say the five cry tier yar the criteria for determining class. not the individual discretion as to whether in fact somebody

would be admitted. that rests completely with the agency. not with the president. >> i was struck by footnote 8 of the opinion where olc when the daca program was going to be instituted, obama said he couldn't do it. they advised him orally, not in write, which i thought was interesting, they say it has to be case by case. but the approval rate is 95 plus percent. how is that case by case if it is 95 plus percent. the way it is implemented con conflicts with the olc footnote. >> the structure of our constitution does not allow for government by executive action only. it requires statutory action, period. especially on an issue like this. where it is in the per view of congress. >> is it your understanding that under the president's policy that people who qualify for

deferred adjudication is eligible for social security benefits because the white house said if they pay in they will receive social security? >> so under the regulations, the class that's been created is under the regulations, it is class of aliens for work. individuals with deferred action 274-a.12. individuals who have deferred action. so that's the class. there is no new class created. >> they will receive social security and medicare? >> they will be eligible for social -- >> so they would not have been el jbl f eligible for that but for the president's -- >> no, but for the -- >> well his action to put that into that situation is now -- it

is my understanding they weren't eligible for obama care -- >> right. nor are they eligible for -- >> the problem with the obama care thing is that yeah there is not subsidies but they are exempt under the statute from obama care's employer mandate. which means they don't count to the 50 employee limit. that business is a about a $3,000 discount to hire the person here illegally over the person who is a u.s. citizen even if they are naturalized. so you said your immigrants rights activist. but it seems they are driving a wedge between immigrants and they are worse off as a result of this. i yield back. >> i have not asked my questions. i'm going to ask you if you care to respond to my question in

writing. it doesn't have to be that long, any of you. i have to switch gears here. i want know what congress can do to have the united states supreme court hear argument on or give parameters a ruling on executive orders, executive privilege. i know we can sue the president no matter who it is on a case by case basis. it is a political issue, procedural issue and i'm just hoping that sometime perhaps the supreme court will take that executive order or executive authority with regard to what we've been seeing with the republican and democrat presidents. so if you care to answer that, love to read it. >> thank you to the witnesses for joining us. thank you for being so patient. and five legislative days to

submit questions. for the witnesses or additional materials for the record. this hearing is adjourned. thank you. >>. >> coming up on c-span 3 wbt senate judiciary committee examining sports blackouts and antitrust exemptions in sports leagues like the nfl not sell-out games don't air in hometown markets due to programs distributors. sec sports and consumer officials as well as senator john mccain who's co-sponsoring a bill to remove such ze exemptions. then chuck hagel and others brief on findings of a report on sexual assaults in the military. finally at 2:00 eastern, tom perez discusses fair wages and enforcement of wage violations in the workplace.

that's live from the center for american progress. here are some of the programs you will find this weekend on the c-span networks. saturday at 11:00 a.m. eastern. live coverage for the memorial service for marion barry. and sunday at 8:00 on c-span, ann compton who retired after 40 years as abc news correspondent. saturday on c-span 2, university of new hampshire assistant professor jason sokol on h. then sunday, arthur brooks. with your phone calls, e-mails and tweets. and on c-span 3 saturday night at 8:00 on lectures of history,

martha jones on female slaves and the law. sunday at 8:00, president h.w. bush's secretary of state james baker on the fall of the berlin wall and liberation of eastern europe. find our complete television schedule at c-span.org and let us know about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-of 26-3400 or e-mail us the comments@cspan.org. >>

welcome to the session on the situation in iraq and syrian specifically the threat imposed by the event. a name tag is not included in the well-deserved knight hood. thank you for coming. if i could begin with a relatively straight forward question. if you could just please perhaps, gentleman i'll begin with giving a sense of what you think priorities should be for defense engagement in the middle east. >> the defense seems to advise for the middle east. and carry the enjoy to the kurdish region of iraq.

although that is made across all of iraq. and my fairly consistent theme about engagement in the middle east is it is an area that is highly complex, highly complicated and closes within it a very, very wide range of british interests, political diplomatic commercial financial. and an area where the united kingdom within afford not to be engaged or approach with a very, i think, well educated and long-term mind-set. and it will throw up both threats and opportunities. and we happen to be a country that has both the history and responsibility for being engaged there. i think there remains an extraordinary and respect and regard for this country and my very consistent message throughout my career, as i've

spent a lot of time in the m middle east, in areas of iraq, iraq again now, is the united kingdom should remain very, very firmly engaged politically, diplomatically, militarily across the board. that is my major, major message. >> peter watkinss. >> i agree with all of what simon says. >> our priorities are to have an alliance with the gulf states and central to the relationships whether it is providing training or close contact between the respective armed services. so in terms of your -- both the current inquiry, that is defense engagement is very much supporting wider political engagement with those countries.

which in return is our strategy towards containing and defeating isil. >> little to add. quite a significant military hardware footprint in the gulf region. yes, it is there to deliver security to the region. yes, it is there as part of a coalition including gcc counter iranian inflew uence in the reg but also wide objectives in security and otherwise. >> in terms of the resources, and parliamentary questions revel that military so far trained zero personnel in level four, expert level arabic and level three professional level

arabic, do you really have the resources in order to fulfill these kinds of objectives and in particular, could you project on the comparison that french for example put in this kind of activity. >> i would say we have the resources. this comes back to my earlier answer about the question about mind-set. but thinks in terms of decades and not years. and its mind-set is on policy that i think should on the basis of what i say this long historical connection we've got and we will go on inevitableably. it is nondiscretionary in the arabic speaking world. and i think we have been neglectful. i say that as a country. i say that probably as an institution. i do think of french partners are more ruthless in using their

military footprint around the world. and i could quote one or two example where there is a highly professional french officers who have been deeply immersed in the intelligence language diplomatic steer. whereby i think they support wider french interest like that. so it is a common criticism but i hope as we move elements of the last -- some of the defense engagement issues, we will take into the next test. one of them is this acknowledgement. and we should be investing in the young generations of captains who will sit in front of house committees with rank and experience and we have better tools in which do this diplomatic engagement.

>> you give us a couple examples, can you give us the sense of the defense and a french position in the uae. >> well, the one example i've used many times just within the defense, a military training and one or two years of arabic training and egyptian staff college and three years in cairo, three years in ua and probably would have done three years if tripoli if hadn't been pushed out by the crisis in libya. and i just feel it isn't for everybody and there is an element of our armed forces that i think should be put on that mind-set. which i think is not -- we could do much better than the french. i think we just need a mind-set prepared to invest in it. and i united kingdom will be much the better for the global footprint if we have a bit more

regard for people. we have made a considerable investment over the last couple years in upgrading and improving our language. we moved our school, made a considerable investment in teaching and facilities. and though there aren't precise figures, we do train people in arabic. perhaps not as many as we should to the level you said, but we are making a major level in that respect. and simon aloluded to what we ae calling the -- and there sr postings either serving in or related to particular parts of the world and can build you over their years.

i don't want you to have the expression we are miles behind on this because we are not. >> the full figures that have been achieved, in level four diary, and in arabic, nil and in pashtun one. i would suggest politely that we have a long way to go before we -- >> there are levels -- >> the level below. in level 3, speaking arabic and qualified as six. pushing back a bit more to learn about that. >>. [ inaudible ] can you give us a flavor of the

trade-in and things that you have, and arabic for example? >> what are you doing through the job you've done is so fantastic. and the flavor of the kind of training of the military. arabic training in 1985, it is that type of investment but i had been dealing with arabic. and the comment across many decades and nearly four decades in the military now that we have not seized in concept that we are still much loved and respected and renowned in the arabic speaking world and we would do well to argue back to peter, to invest a lot plor.

in parts of the world where defense of security we begin this access and privileged position which the united kingdom should be hugely ambitio ambitious. both in terms of opportunities that are responsibilities for threats. it is not something you can turn on overnight but actively to be giving people the tools to move in that area. and inevitableably, and go to a certain level, and the best arabic speaker of my generation. complete indictment. not a boast at all. and i think people in my ilk, 20 years time, we won't be dealing with the committee we are looking at today. just a process to start. and peter is right, absolutely

his guidance and as your statistics show, gentlemen, it takes a long time to get to that level. but you've got to start some day and you don't need to go with interpreters the whole time or just deal with those that can speak english to you. you can tackle things here. just swung through and huge intelligence gathering, but we don't have that. >> and given that, what sort of resource do we really have focused on iraq and syria? for example, what presence do we have of the defense section in northern iraq. do we have the depth of expertise to get a detailed understanding of the enemy.

>> well we've add defense section in iraq for a long time. >> before that we did not have a defense section and in baghdad having responsibility for the -- >> would i be right in saying that the moment in which the islamic state mounted its defense, there was no defense section in iraq. talking in august. >> that is right. >> that is still a unitary state. and putting defense sections in

the capital where they work with the other -- [ inaudible ] . >> why have you now put the defense session in northern iraq if you didn't think it was necessary -- >> quite clearly, there was a lot more activity going in and around than before -- >> perhaps. >> -- >> do you think he might have been better equipped in august when the state advanced if you had like the americans had on the ground able to visit the front line. >> that was speculative. the speed and scale and all those months ago took many people by surprise. >> and there was not a defense section specifically.

but the defense section took their responsibility wet kurds and were through -- we gave an understanding of the situation. and it is not just a defense issue and understanding of situation prior to the isil advance. and it was something that what a cross government effort and we were -- there was information flowing from that and -- >> and would you like to reflect the resources, kind of resources we have and the enemy and the resources that we have before the resources we have -- >> we ended up with two very distinct military problems. they anticipated the klg and

would be fighting and separate wars within throw weeks or less than that. and 1050 kilometer front line with a terrorist state and 15 kilometer front line with the rest of the iraqi state. so from that point of view that's why it became critical to treat the area around baghdad and am bar and et cetera. as 1 military problem let alone a political or diplomatic military problem and actually then when we had to do our at about toast keep depesh in the fight -- i think overall, like the americans, since 2011, and in a combination of an american desire to get out of iraq and maliki inspired by iran to get western influences out, i think

we have a very good footprint across the region and in the ministries of defense we all understand and i'm sure people cover ra. and the politics in baghdad. i think in gathering the politics and keeping contribution to ist and our ability to move in and out of the ministries and various operational command centers so we know very well placed, i think we probably no less take by surprise in the iraqi government. >> a sense of where this is going, the focus today is on the middle east. but we're beginning to hear a wider threat. are we making sure that we're aware of that threat and prepared should it grow.

i'm thinking particularly in the border between pakistan and afghanistan. >> you mean a wider threat from violent islamic -- >> no, from -- >> from i.s.? >> yes. >> i can't say much about that. yes, there is -- there are, if you like rumors and speculation but there may be some sort of broader i.s. presence spreading toward the east. that is something we are watching very carefully. and i think i.s. is quite a big brand at the moment and therefore association with that brand is something that extremists might seek and that is something that we are seeing and not an enormous extent but to some extent looking both east and west and the area you describe and areas of north africa.

>> all of these are manifestations. some of them regional, cultural, of this extremist ideological and now the islamic state for the loyalty and the allegiance or baghdady and what you talk about in pakistan and afghanistan, is a manifestation of issues we've had in al qaeda and taliban areas and afghani. and through a slightly different prison with i.s. so the brand name which we picked up, and the arabian peninsula, is becoming a bit of i.s. in the fatah, i.s. in the

saw hill. there is a bit of competition for that. which brand is most attractive. but the core of it is this very, very unpleasant ideological. aol. . . idealismological. idealismlogica. .