work on. the other piece of legislation, which is not among these bills, is the annual appropriation bill. last year we increased alzheimer's research by $100 million. a very, very good thing. but, again, we could do much more. and if we were to do that, we might be able -- not might, i'm convinced we would be able to advance the knowledge, the early detection and, as you said a moment ago, a cure for this devastating illness. it's this. the only thing we need is to focus our attention, focus the world's attention on this, put the money into research and then we can see a solution. if you care to wrap, i've had my say on this. mr. roskam: i want to compliment you and thank you to the

gentleman from california for your leadership on this issue, the leadership on the alzheimer's task force and your bringing people together on both sides of the aisle, trying to leverage resources, be wise in how we do this, but recognizing a responsibility that you and i and or colleagues have, and that responsibility is to do everything we can to try to alleviate this burden and ultimately drive toward the cure. mr. garamendi: thank you. representative roskam, it's been great working with you this evening, we'll call this a beginning, working on an issue that affects everyone on both sides of the aisle and across america. we can deal with alzheimer's, we need to put our shoulders to the wheel and push forward with programs we know are successful. i, too, am happy to be a co-sponsor of today's piece -- of these piece of legislation. so much for tonight on this

issue. we'll come back to it in a few weeks and see what progress has been made, in the mentime, we have had our discussion this evening on this important illness. i yield back my remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. garamendi: i have a motion. the speaker pro tempore: if the gentleman would suspend. mr. garamendi: i will gather up my things and stay by for a motion if necessary.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. garamendi: mr. speaker, i move to adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands adjourned

you can follow the house live when members return on wednesday. >> the administration has requested $3.7 billion in emergency funding from congress for stopping some of the influx of children and dealing with the situation along the southern border with mexico. "the wall street journal" writing about this story. what's in the administration's request to congress? >> well, a lot of the money is

to essentially detain and house children and families who are crossing the border. that's really where the crisis has been. a huge influx. thousands of children traveling alone. and adults traveling with children and family groups. have come across the border. and in each of those cases there are special needs for housing them. and the administration is simply unable to handle right now. and that's what -- a lot of the money would go toward. >> you write in your piece in "the wall street journal" that the white house' proposal puts the president in an awkward position. asking for more staff and detention facilities to crack down on illegal crossings when he had hoped to sign a liberalization of immigration law. does the white house get anything out of this request that they had wanted to get even before all of this crisis started? >> no. this request is all directly related to the crisis itself. there really isn't any effort to attach any of the other parts of immigration reform to it. it's a very different sort of situation. this really is a request for a

crackdown. there is some stuff in there that immigrant rights advocates do like. like legal representation for minors. efforts to -- for money to try to stem the heart of the -- the root of the crisis in these central american countries where these children are coming from. but like i said, most of the money is either to house these children while they look for sponsors in the u.s. where they'll await their deportation proceedings or for families to hold them in order to then quickly process them and deport them back to their countries. >> how is the request received on capitol hill? a little bit of a mix. there is openness to the request. there are a few concerns out there. there are some republicans who are saying that this should be offset with other spending cuts or the few people who have said no, we should work this into the regular appropriations process. but for the most part there was openness from republican leaders as well as from democratic leaders. harry reid said he hoped to move it through the senate

before the august break. however, there is a complication here. which is that there's another piece of this request which is not the funding but it's for a change in law. which the president reiterated in a letter to congress today to his -- what that would do is change the way that the government handles unaccompanied minors. these children traveling alone. right now, the law, 2008 law, dictates that the way that these kids are supposed to be handled is again, they're placed with h.h.s. which looks for a sponsor, and then their deportation proceedings unfold slowly because our immigration courts are incredibly backlogged. so it can take years for their cases to be heard. that's not the way kids from mexico or theoretically from canada are handled. those cases are expedited. and what -- the white house is asking is to work with congress to change the law and allow for the expedited removal of these kids from central america. as well. that is much more controversial with democrats.

republicans are -- appear very open to that idea and democrats not so much. >> a couple of weeks ago along those lines, you tweeted obama's deportation policy complicated by the surge of children. so what's next in terms of this administration request? how quickly will it make its way through congress? >> well, again, harry reid, the senate majority leader, said today that he thoped move it through before the august break. so that's a pretty fast trake. we're just talking about a few weeks there. and unclear what will happen in the house. the chairman of the appropriations committee, hal rogers in the house, republican of kentucky, said that he was -- essentially he said he would have to review the request. but he issued sort of a very sympathetic statement to what the request is trying to accomplish. and said that it's something the house should definitely address. so i think that it's -- this could move quickly. however, again, if republicans try to attach this obama request essentially, or a version of the obama request to change that 2008 law, then that -- that could complicate this.

so i often say no one ever went broke betting against congress doing something. they tend to act very slowly. but this is a situation where i think people from all parties view as a true emergency. >> you can follow laura eckler's reporting @laurameckler on twitter. >> the surs customs and border protection, the security challenges along the u.s. border. and the influx of immigrants into the u.s. live coverage from the senate homeland security committee starts tomorrow morning at 10:00 eastern on c-span3. and you can give your opinion on twitter and our facebook page. the nato secretary general is in washington this week. this from "usa today." the leader of the north atlantic treaty organization so that afghanistan needs to sign security agreements by the time after nato summit in early

september. post combat security agreements involving afghanistan, the united states, and its allies, have been delayed. because of disputed results in the afghan presidential election. that from david jackson of "usa today." now, here's nato secretary general rasmussen estimating with president obama about afghanistan and ukraine. >> your discussion on ukraine. it sounded as if the president, other european leaders, are becoming convinced that perhaps additional sanctions may be necessary against russia. did your discussion get into that area with the president? and what exactly was discussed when it comes -- >> we discussed ukraine. we discussed the dramatically changed security environment in europe. but let me stress that it's not for nato to impose sanctions.

that's rather the european union, the united states, d-7. but i have personally no doubt that if russia were to intervene further in ukraine or if russia continues to destabilize the situation in eastern ukraine, russia will be met by a broader and deeper economic sanctions that would really hurt the russian economy. >> that's your understanding. and your sense of the cease-fire and the volatile situation in eastern ukraine right now. where does that stand right now in nato's eyes? >> we do appreciate that president porshenko has taken a number of initiatives to find a peaceful solution to the crisis in ukraine, including -- including a unilateral

cease-fire. armed ly regret that gangs of strattists didn't respect that cease-fire. ut i think president polshenko deserves all support for his efforts to find a peaceful solution. >> and on afghanistan, the president spoke with presidential candidate there abdullah abdullah last night. and essentially worned all parties in afghanistan that if there is election fraud and if there is a further destablizing situation there around those obligations the u.s. may pull back financial and security assistance and that may also involve nato, i gather, is that correct? >> it is a matter of grave concern to see the allegations of widespread fraud. and we urge both presidential candidates to work

constructively with the electoral authorities of afghanistan, to find a solution that ensures a credible outcome of the presidential elections. an outcome that truly reflects the will of the afghan people. and let me add to this, it is a prerequisite for our continued presence in afghanistan after 2014 that a bilateral security agreement between afghanistan and the united states as well as the nato security agreement are signed, and hopefully they could be signed before the nato summit in wales in september. >> do these alses of election fraud just finally, do they put that security agreement in some jeopardy do you think? >> yeah. if the electoral process drags out, and if there's no qualification of this process before the nato process in

september, then of course it's hard to see how the security agreements can be signed before the summit. and in that case, we would be faced with severe problems as regards planning for a training mission after 2014. >> and a potential -- >> thank you. > thank you. >> for 35 years c-span brings public affairs events from washington directly to you. putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences and offering them gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service of private industry. we're c-span. created by the cable tv industry. 35 years ago. and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in h.d., like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter.

>> afghan presidential candidate abdullah abdullah told supporters that he'll declare victory in the country's election. claiming massive fraud was responsible for preliminary results that put his rival in the lead. the independent election commission needs to verify the results. next, a discussion on the current political climate and recent elections in afghanistan. hosted by the atlantic council, this is 90 minutes. >> good afternoon, everyone. i'm sir john nevaz director of the atlantic council. and on behalf of my colleagues at the center, and our president, fred kemp, i would like to welcome all of you to

this extremely interesting event beyond the afghan elections, the immediate challenges. the elections are over but the results are not yet over. and we've been following with great interest the news out of kabul. and i couldn't think of two better persons to help us translate the action in the region as well as in kabul than ambassador azad and david sedney. both of them are well-known to all of you. i feel as the head of the south asia center that afghanistan and particularly what we would call a rising afghanistan is of utmost importance not just to the region but to the world. it's a very important part of

-- a very critical chapter in the history of the united states. and its involvement in the region. and also a very critical part in the history of afghanistan itself. and the progress that the afghan people have made in the last few years. particularly the manner in which they went out to vote against the threat of the taliban. and against the blandishments of the taliban as well. and vote not just once but ties. and i think that's a huge success and that's something that we should salute. but in this process, there has been a fair amount of controversy and debate and discussion. and i think it will be critical to -- for us to understand exactly where things are headed and what are the implications of the results and what are the ultimate objectives that we should be seeking out of this 'em broge low inside kabul as a

result of the elections? a few words about our two speakers. for those of you that haven't been following the news, ambassador halil assad is the president and c.e.o. of griffin partners. d he's been in the leading edge of diplomacy for the previous government as ambassador, first to the united nations, he served of course as the ambassador to the united nations. before that, he was ambassador to iraq. and ambassador to afghanistan. he's also been the u.s. special presidential envoy to afghanistan in the early days of 2001 to 2003. and he maintains very close relationships with the whole region, from the middle east to south asia. people at the highest level.

and we're very lucky to have him here. because invariably, whenever i try and reach out to him, he's on a plane somewhere or on a plane. and i don't know where. david sedney is a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for afghanistan, pakistan, and central asia. d.o.d. and rving in also deputy assistant secretary of defense for east asia and deputy chief of commission at the u.s. embassy in beijing from 2004 to 2007. and then earlier, from 2003 to 2004, he was the deputy chief of mission at the u.s. embassy in kabul where he was also charges defairs from august to november of 2003. and deputy chief of mission in kabul in 2002, right after the united states

embassy in kabul. david has been a frequent speaker on various panels as is ambassador halil assad so i'll ask ambassador halil assad to share the latest out of kabul and his take on it. and then after him, david sedney and then we will gather on the stage to have a conversation amongst ourselves and all of you. i'm especially grateful for the audience at home. and so we hope that there will be questions coming in from everyone. thank you. mbassador halil assad. thank you very much and thanks to all of you. i'm delighted that i'm here on a panel with my old partner in kabul, david sedney, who served with distinction twice in

afghanistan. rather than start with the latest news let me reflect a little bit on how far fghanistan has come. and the challenges now and a way forward and particularly with regard to the role of the united states. i believe that the last 10, 12 years have been the most transformative in the history of afghanistan. i think that you probably -- afghans were in the audience and i see so many familiar faces, would agree that there's no 10 years in afghan history of its very long history, with very glorious period, but also with very difficult and sad period that so much has happened in such a short time.

and if you look at the number of kids going to school, they increase. if you look at the number of kilometers of roads that have been built, if you look at the growth in per capita income, if you look at the changes socially, the role of women. if you look at the afghanistan connectist with the world and the cell phone revolution, if you look at the health, i see colleagues from the government here who have worked on this issue, how life expectancy of afghans have increased very significantly in the last 10 years. issue of look at the

the role of civil society whether it's women's groups, whether it's other groups that are advocating on behalf of their various interests, that have been -- that's -- there's been tremendous progress. and i'm sure i've left quite a few things that should be noted. and the one thing that is relevant, particularly with regard to what is going on now, and what has been going on recently, is also the tremendous increase in the capabilities of afghan institutions. particularly the security institutions where they have been taking on more and more responsibility for the security of the country themselves. a tremendous been

amount of sacrifice that the afghan soldiers, policemen, and others have been making and confronting the challenges that they continue to face the taliban, and he the -- some ups, of the taliban that are more foreign taliban. pakistani taliban. and the challenge of a neighborhood that has been very difficult for them. because of the rivalries as well as because of the -- particularly with high regard to mother of all security problems of afghanistan, and the sanctuary for some of these elements that are not only fighting the coalition but also

the afghan security forces and the political process in afghanistan. now, one of the big changes that the current situation has been is the elections have taken place, afghans came out twice to vote round one. round two, and this is a very important election and unprecedented in terms of what it seeks to achieve. what it sought to achieve which is a peaceful transfer of power from one elected president to he next one. and there has been as it's well-known problems that -- charges that have -- by one of the candidates, mr. abdullah moore, although dr. rah san

jane has talked about it the issue of fraud with regard to the election. how to deal with this issue and how it has been dealt with, what are the potential risks of not dealing with it appropriately? what are some possible ways that the challenges associated with this problem could be overcome? in my judgment there are two processes that are going on simultaneously. one is the formal process. he electoral process that -- there is obviously as you all know, two institutions that are responsible for managing the electoral process. one is the independent election commission. created by law. and the other one is the

complaint commission that they both are responsible in the formal process. the dr. ion is, that abdullah has judged that he does not -- have confidence in their work. and as disengaged from that process and there is a need for steps and there are issues under consideration and discussions going on. there was some progress made with the help of the united ations that i see a former distinguished u.n. representative in afghanistan. there was a lot of experience and somewhat similar circumstances. strengthen with the

help -- to the extent that's needed by these two commissions. and the steps that would be ken that would satisfy particularly in dr. abdullah to re-engage and come back and work with the two commissions. as i said before, there has been a lot of work going on. there was a lot of progress with regard to the steps that needed to be taken. i think that dr. abdullah had some six requests of that -- that needed to be done to make it acceptable. this is as of a couple of days ago. rah k the u.n. and dr. san jane have agreed to four and making further progress, maybe to get to a fifth one.

and then, however, as you know the issue of the announcement has come, i've heard, and there descriptions and interpretations but from what i there was an that agreement between the two can pains that 7,000 boxes that were going to be subject to -- her orders, that there their ballots would not be included in the announcement that was to be made. that was made yesterday. and in the fog of war principle that i've learned over the years from my experience in such situations, one doesn't

know exactly what happened. that those ballots and the 7,000 boxes that were to be excluded from the announcement were included in the announcement. as -- increased distrust complicating factor. everyone of course are of the view that including i think if rafsanjani that dr. had been in agreement if i understand correctly about seclusion of those, i think we don't know exactly what happened. whether there have been various explanations given. so the crisis caused by the announcement and the way that it was announced before there had been an agreement completely on the remaining two

or three items between the two campaigns. to he issue of what announce, what to include in that announcement. and what to exclude. led to a situation in which -- of course the outcome was rejected. and there was a potential crisis that reports that maybe a abdullah might announce parallel in quotation mark or a unity government with the risk that you could have a variety of governments so to speak which poses a great deal of risk for afghanistan. and the beneficiary of which would be only those who do not wish afghanistan well meaning the taliban and others.

i give credit to the diplomacy of secretary kerry and esident obama that their intervention, very intense intervention by secretary kerry on multiple occasions and the esident on directly on one occasion that as for now, at east, avoided the announcement if that -- there was somewhere speculating, could have taken place today of a parallel government. i think that with the cretary's visit, soon, and that's obviously the opportunity for very intense diplomacy, to deal with the process issues that -- how to deal with the issue of identifying the

fraudulent votes separating them. and that would be consistent with afghan law. respect for the voters of afghanistan. and the voters who have taken the risks to vote twice. and to come to an outcome that is -- that is both legal from afghan point of view and credible from the point of view of the candidates. because what needs to avoid is what was avoided for today at least, the -- an action outside the law of formation of parallel government. and what have you. the second track, and these are all formal -- the formal track with regard to the elections that i mentioned, there's the

-- have an to understanding reesmed between a two camps to avoid , a ion, new fault lines new crisis in terms of the inability which could be the consequence of inability for afghans to come together after an election. elections everywhere are polarizing and they take sides and compete. ifferent points of view. aspirations. people taking sides but how do you bring them together afterward? i think both candidates have said they don't believe in the

philosophy of winner take all. that afghanistan is not at the takes all the winner the positions for itself and there's no room for -- for those who have lost. the question is, and that is more the work of the afghans, internationals can help. perhaps to a lesser degree than they can help on the formal process of how do you increase the technical capabilities of the electoral institutions if they are needed? is to come to some broad based after inclusive government. and this is also in my judgment necessary and vital for the

ultimate success. and there are a range of ideas out there for what -- the exact arrangements could be. the winner of course will be the president. and the constitution as it specified the responsibility of the president. afghanistan is a strong presidential system. ashaff -- and how the constitution can be changed. but that's a presidential system, what can you do in rms of inclusiveness to have kind of shared or broadly participatory and not only from the winning team but from the team that may come second.

i believe there are lots of ideas. i'm reluctant to discuss them at this point. maybe to request -- question and answer and some of these issues are such sensitivity that perhaps discussion on them, although i'm a private citizen, at this stage, could be misconstrued there given we are in the united states. and so therefore i would say the following. to conclude. that -- go back to my basic point that afghanistan has come a long way. but the successes are not irreversible. and that it is a responsibility of the leaders of afghanistan, particularly the two candidates . and consistent with the laws and constitution of afghanistan, to -- i know there are pressures on the

candidates. nd i believe that as we were talking with david and i just before coming here, dr. abdullah, for example, in his press statement, today, ended very positively about the future. but i know he's under a lot of pressure from people to do certain things that if you do them, going back on them will become much harder. and similarly, there are ghani es on i'm sure dr. that many know quite well. and two rise to the occasion because i could say a point of personal privilege that no position is as important as the future of their country. and the future of afghanistan and the future of 30 million people who have suffered a great deal over the last 30, 35 years. and there's -- if there's a will, and i hope there is, that

there is a formula and that can i think deal with both of these issues in a way that can safeguard the longer term interests of the country. and i hope that -- and i believe that -- and i'm positive that with very senior level intense engagement on the part of the united states, which is necessary, that hopefully will make -- will things e of the worst that are possible and the mix of things that one can see and identify that could be very damaging, certainly to afghanistan. but also to the broader region. and to the -- given the efforts and the stakes involved for the international community. particularly the united states. those are more negative scenarios can be avoided.

thank you very much. i hope that's ok as an opening statement. so we'll now turn it over to david. [applause] >> thanks, al. you're always a very tough act to follow. but i will try. i want to start off by thanking mr. nuwaz and the atlantic uncil for not olddle -- only holding this but events to refocus the attention of the united states on the events right now in afghanistan but more importantly the future of afghanistan. i think that is a tremendous contribution to not just the understanding of afghanistan here but to u.s. national interests which still -- which i believe are of really paramount importance in afghanistan. and if we don't understand

what's happening in afghanistan, if we don't understand what's at stake, we will make huge mistakes in our policy. the atlantic council is playing a very positive role. and so i appreciate that. i bs want to associate myself very strongly with the remarks ambassador khalilzad made overall. but particularly his point about the progress in afghanistan. it's one of the stories that the american people don't know. i've said this before. some of you may have heard this before. the american people and american leaders can't make good decisions on afghanistan because they don't know the facts. most americans that i talked to specially outside of washington think afghanistan has been a failure. that there's violence all over the country. there's been no progress anywhere. everything has gotten worse since we've been there and let's get out. as ambassador khalilzad pointed out that's not the truth. there's been progress massively

across afghanistan. i was most recently there in december. the kabul that i saw was very different, completely different than the kabul i saw in 2002. when i first went there. very different of course, ambassador khalilzad will echo this and anybody who's been there including afghans in the audience here. there has been a huge amount of progress. america and our nato allies and in many ways have succeeded in what we set out to do. we are succeeding. but we can still lose it. we can still fail. since i left the u.s. government a year ago and spoke out strongly on that and somewhat critically, particularly some decisions made by this administration. i would like to therefore also second what the am bars dorr just -- ambassador said about the administration and what they've been doing recently in terms of trying to ensure that the elections don't turn from a huge victory for the afghan people to not just a huge defeat but a crushing tragedy

and a reopening of the civil war. i don't say that lightly. but i know that people on both sides have threatened to go to the streets. have threatened to use violence. and that would be a terrible tragedy not just for the afghan people but for u.s. national interests as well. i will mention here and mention again the close of my remarks that the importance of i would say the original topic of this discussion, which was the future of afghanistan after the elections. in other words, what were the priorities -- what the priorities should be of a new government and what should be -- what in the first 100 days or whatever for example, what kind of things they need to do. and i think that's very important because afghanistan, regardless of what's happening now, faces huge, huge challenges. given all that success, maintaining it, continuing it is going to be. very difficult. especially in a region that they -- that afghanistan is going to be forever with contesting powers. and seeking advantage. or seeking their own national

interest. but i'm going to go back to the recent events of the election. and just say a few words about those. i think it's important to reiterate the point that the ambassador made. this is the vote count from the election committee, the website and it is the unaudited vote count. and that is f you go back to yesterday, which seems like a long time actually in this narrative, you will have noticed that the u.s. state department put out a statement that said that focused on the potentially the lack of wisdom of announcing that with a very strong stress that a lot of fraud was committed. and that no victor should be imputed from these results. that's not to say that isn't a victor. but it's what it is to say is that essentially right now, the margin of fraud is larger than the margin of error.

there's so much fraud, so much undiscovered fraud, so much fraud that might be there and might not be, no one knows. and the processes to discover that have come down to a reasonable election result by counting is going to take a lot of work and a lot of that work is the am -- as the am bar dorr said has been agreed on between the two sides. but as often happens in the real world, and politics, things intervene. i want to also second what the ambassador said which is that there is time here. there's also not a lot of time. i read the speech that -- i listened to the speech that dr. abdullah gave yesterday. that i think has been a bit misreported in the press. i think the key things that he said was he asked his supporters for time. he is under huge pressure from a number of his supporters to take to the streets. to declare a parallel government. to declare himself the victor.

and act that way. now, of course both he and dr. ghani have declared themselves a victor. i think every close election that i'm aware of in the united states or elsewhere both sides always declare themselves the victor and try to figure out what to do and how to move forward and that's what's happening in afghanistan right now. but by asking his supporters to wait, to -- saying that while he had the right to declare a provisional government or alternate or whatever you want to call it he wouldn't do it and he would wait. as the ambassador said he's waiting for secretary kerry to arrive. secretary kerry i think played a hugely important and very positive role in 2009. competence, the charisma, the wisdom to play that kind of role. but of course the key actors are afghans. they're the ones who have to make the decisions. secretary kerry and others can only play a role. i think it's hugely important

as dr. abdullah announced in his speech that president obama called dr. abdullah and i believe he called dr. ghani as well. i'm sure he did. that kind of personal involvement by our president in the afghan political process at this point, given the stakes that the united states has in afghanistan, is absolutely vital. it will help secretary kerry to have a greater chance of success. and it also makes clear to the afghan people the importance that the united states continues to attach to afghanistan. something that has been under question over past several years and particularly the announcement the president made about the time line and the withdrawal a few months back. but that is why as i said i welcome that involvement by the administration. but there's -- there are a lot of pressures there that don't have anything to do with what the united states does and

supporters of both candidates in afghanistan want decisive action by their candidates to put them into positions of power. to settle personal grudges. and in some cases go back generations. and certainly go back well to the time that the ambassador and i worked together over there. and i will stress that he was the ambassador and i was the deputy. that that's important to note and a great privilege to be his all of those interlocking webs of conflict, i don't think that's a contradiction, webs of conflict, that exist among people in all political systems, is something that eally only afghans can do as said. but at this point in time the united states, the international community, has an opportunity to help ensure that the progress that's necessary in afghanistan is made. i think the stakes are really, really high. that doesn't mean that secretary kerry fails to solve it that all is lost. but what it means is he has the opportunity to make a huge

impact. and i think that he will. again, echoing the ambassador, where there are wills, there are ways. and i think there are wills on both sides. the question is, can they be a ught together to a -- to way forward? but it's going to be very hard. one other area that i would mention about whether there's been huge progress in afghanistan, and that's in the afghan security forces, particularly the afghan army. one thing that we should not forget, that as we have put our forces down, as -- as american lives lost and americans who suffer injuries, our nato allies whose lives were lost and suffer injuries those numbers have gone down. afghan numbers have gone up. and they've gone way up. especially in the last three to four months. the conflict continues. people are fighting and dying every day in afghanistan. and to date, the afghan security forces, again, particularly the afghan army or the police, is doing better as

well. are performing well above where many people thought they would be tow or three or four years ago. they are doing that despite the fact they don't have adequate air power. despite the fact that the intelligence support and logistical support from the u.s. and nato has decreased much more quickly than is wise and an increasing level of risk to that effort. and they're doing so by and large, this is from my own experience so in talking to afghans and being in afghanistan, and doing so because by and large they are committed to fighting for their country. they have a national spirit and a national identity. that is put at risk by the current political impasse. and the longer the political impasse lasts, the more likely it is there will be problems inside the army, inside the security forces and elsewhere. i think really a situation is that every day that there's not a solution, makes the situation for the future more dangerous and more difficult to resolve. and again, i trust that the

leaders in afghanistan not just the -- not just the two candidates but other important afghan leaders realize that. two other influences i want to mention. i think are important. at the same time, there's this essentially weakness at the center of the afghan political process that the other actors in afghanistan. and most importantly the taliban but as pakistan as well. iran. other outside powers are taking lessons, learning and making plans or in some cases having assumptions validated by what's happening on the ground in afghanistan. and that by and large is a real negative for afghanistan. the lessons for those in pakistan without being 100% definite about who i mean there, those in pakistan who see a weak and divided afghanistan as it impacts pakistan's interests take this as a signal that their efforts to that end have always been right and should continue. the taliban are certainly

taking -- this as an opportunity to put greater pressure on the afghan security forces so they have mounted up a pretty impressive offensive over the last few weeks. that offensive is likely to spread to other areas in the -- in the south and east. in coming weeks. the continuing unfolding of a kistani offensive in the north and the impact it will have on afghanistan is still unclear. it may well be negative for afghanistan. because right now, there's not enough coordination between the afghan and pakistani military and security authorities on how to handle that. there are -- these dangers are accelerating. and it's a time when afghanistan needs united leadership. and that is where i hope it will be. within the next couple of weeks. the final election-related thing i wanted to mention was the role of president karzai. it's been very controversial in afghanistan.

people in both camps have described a triangle of evil which involves president karzai, the election commission, perhaps the united states, perhaps who the other side or definitely the other side and perhaps the election commission and different arrays. but president karzai is seen by many as having played a major role in the current impasse. and many people believe that he is doing this in order to remain in power. my own experience, which pales in that with relationship to the ambassador, and i ask him to comment on it when he comes up, is that president karzai at heart doesn't want to be president anymore. it's a tough, hard job. he's done it for 10 years. actually more than 10 years, almost 12, over 12 now. he would like to be replaced by a system, by people, who are effective. but who also give him a proper role. but i think there's also a people around president karzai and perhaps even -- always danger to speculate about individuals. and perhaps even president

karzai, part of himself that is prepared to stay in power. if the alternatives aren't better. and if the political process doesn't yield a better alternative, and president karzai stays in power, then president karzai will have lost the biggest contribution he can make to his -- the success of his country which is a successful, peaceful, transfer of power from one civilian leader to another. something that, for example, it took the neighboring country of pakistan over half a century to do. this is a huge accomplishment. and i think it is something that is important for us to help president karzai to do. and i think in many ways, he wants to do that. so i'm not a believer that this is all a plot by president karzai to take power. but i think that could be the result or to keep power, rather. that could be the result. and a lot of what -- whether that happens or not depends of course on what happens in kabul in coming days so it's important that all afghan leaders who can play a positive

role do so in coming days. finally, a couple of words on the most important issues for afghanistan, for any government afterwards. and i had a much longer thing prepared on this a few days ago. but i'm not going to use it. i'm going to say that it needs to be inclusive, progressive, reforming, noncorrupt and young government. to go back to the areas of success, perhaps the biggest area of success in afghanistan, and i see some in the audience who fit this bill, is the emrgens of a younger generation that has the potential to really change their country. in many ways more and more has the capabilities to change the country. one of the sad things about the past election is there were no real representatives of that new generation even running for president to prepare to be president, five or 10 years in the future. it's really important for a new leader to empower those and to take steps to be inclusive, to begin to address the huge corruption problem afghanistan

faces. and also to really reform the government. because that's what the people of afghanistan very clearly voted for. they voted for with their feet and voted for as dr. abdullah said this speech yesterday, they voted for it with their fingers, those people whose fingers were cut off as a result of the election. and they voted with their lives as the afghan security forces are doing. they want a new government. they want change. if this process results in that, then the afghan people's sacrifices will have been worth it and if not, we'll see a return, we could see a return to the incredible tragedies that have beset not just the afghan people but the surrounding countries and the united states. over the last 30 years. thank you. and look forward to your questions. [applause] > david?

>> as promised, this was a spectacular introduction to the topic. and not just about the elections but the future of afghanistan. and i'm very grateful to ambassador khalilzad and to david sedney for setting the stage for this very rich banquet of ideas. let me if i may pick up on something that david said, i think you said where there are wills, there are ways. and ambassador khalilzad also talked about various possibilities and promised that we might be able to define them in the question and answer session. let me ask you, what are the most likely ways and i'll start with ambassador khalilzad first, what are the most likely ways in which this impasse can

e removed and the result obtained maybe even by the 24th of this month? >> well, this is obviously one f the most important issues. nd i'm a little reluctant to go too much in detail if you don't mind. et me say the following -- i said e certainly as before statements from both candidates. and dr. ashraf ghani has said publicly and the discussion that is i've had with him, referring to the experience of western europe, post world war, whether you had very broad

participation, coalition governments to deal with the broad challenges that those countries faced. and given where afghanistan is, it needs near consensus on many issues. to make progress. and there have been ideas with regard to making a distinction between policy making and policy execution. and the policy making area, there are lots of potential possibilities for participation . by members of the two teams. and the policy execution section, too, there are areas of participation. there's

there is also not executive branch opportunities. by someone whoon comes but does not want to be in the executive branch for participation. whether it is in the legislative branch, the establishment of the position of the opposition sense in a formal, legal with specified responsibilities and participation in the process. as david said and you repeated, there is a will. there is a way. i could think of many powerful

possibilities that satisfy the requirements of the const touche and and the laws of afghanistan until the constitution changes, meaningful gives a but to the winning team also for the other side. for how tojudgment avoid going over the brink. i think the sooner we can make progress to achieve agreement on the formal process to get to and accept did, legitimate winner and there was a phase yesterday

and to do the other, my own judgment to solve this problem is you need progress on both sides. i appreciate that both candidates are saying they are not looking for power-sharing and such things. battle aboutf the , one could getis progress on what would happen. we want to know what will happen to the team that will not do as well. therefore, i think that is as important in a sense. we should have the lead on that and we can take a calculated role but not a lot. i think to avoid a serious need progress on both

of these and there are lots of ideas. afghanistan is not the first country in the world to have a potential crisis of this kind. one can learn from the and getce of others some of those good ideas that have worked. there are some that have not worked so well. , so to speak.t >> david, do you want to be a little more daring than mr. khalilzad and identifying them? with it's a huge challenge a very daring approach to things and a successful one. a couple of comments. on the issues that face afghanistan and the way to address those issues, if you look at what the candidates have said their priorities are and

what they identified in the debates, and lines of the speeches that got the most applause, there is a lot of congruence. smart, these are very very capable people. both of them, i think, have the capacity to be great leaders of afghanistan. they have a track record. if you look at the substance, i think, there is very little difference on the policies they want for the future of the after and people and they have the support of the afghan people. that is where they need to come together. the biggest danger is the exposition of politics -- ethnicization of politics. on the one hand, just about every afghan is of the view that it is a unitary state and will stay together.

it will not fracture into various ethnic groups. he said that to his speech last and i think the afghans in the room here, if you disagree, please speak up. but what has happened in the election because of a series of , he would no year more than that because he was in kabul where there were discussions about the unity government way ahead. those dreams, those ambitions, those efforts were frustrating and someday someone will write a book about it but the bottom line is that they failed. wasresult is that failure tickets that were not reflect of enough of the afghan people as a whole. about not offer specifics

who might be changed, replaced, who should give up what is edition in government, but broadly speaking afghanistan needs a government that does not further polarize the country along ethnic lines. that already happened in afghanistan in the 1990's. it would be much worse today if it happened again. i think both candidates realize that. both of them and their supporters are going to have to make some serious sacrifices. people don't make serious sacrifices when they still think they can win the whole thing. both sides believe they can win the whole thing now. the problem i have analytically with that is both sides of if they win the whole thing, both sides lose. there has to be a political cooperation. i'm not using the term

"power-sharing" it is i think that's the wrong approach. they have to actually reject power-sharing that was agreed to , which i believe was a and no real alternative but it did result in putting people into positions of power where they continue to exploit the afghan people. assuagedgroups were rather than the afghan people being the focus. if that happens again, some kind of power-sharing where different ministries are breaking up and they become victims of individual ethnic groups, we will have a continuing set of problems. i apologize but the people who need to be daring are the leaders of that and a stand. ofare the leaders afghanistan. they are the people who have provided the funding and occupied political positions of authority in afghanistan.

have been daring may the wrong word. these are riskier ideas. those of you who are well versed in politics and have taken more of a statesman-like approach, let me ask something based on said,mbassador khalilzad the u.s. role. on the one hand, everyone talks but we have the image in the optics of the secretary of state arriving there. according to the reports of the help ask thee will arrangements surrounding the recount and the adjudication of the votes. i'm sure secretary of state cary will not be involved in the auditing of the results of the recount. how exactly does one balance

this involvement and yet a hands off approach? the trip byt shows the secretary, as david therened, john kerry was in 2009 and played a helpful role. helpful in the decisions will have to be made, however -- and the decisions will have to be made, however, by the app dance. but i find in my experience, having been born in afghanistan, coming here and going back, being involved in american diplomacy for a time is that what we are good at, and i mean the united states, we can sometimes see alternatives that,

i think, one thing distinguishes, perhaps, the distinguishing characteristic of the americans is that we think for every problem there is a solution and sometimes that can get us in trouble because sometimes some problems are not easily solvable and you have to learn how to manage and live with it. that is an american tendency to think there must be a way to solve this problem or to deal with it effectively. i think when people are in the tot of the political battle put that issue especially in the

dynamics i have seen up close and personal. david mentioned a winner take all attitude and this is a unique opportunity, so to speak. we can see ways -- although they are both smart candidates, nevertheless they are in difficult situations and ideas coming from us or the u.n. can be helpful to them in dealing with their own kind of constituencies and support. to some extent, they may even think it's a good idea perhaps to say that it came from the united states and perhaps even blaming or criticizing us but

nonetheless, what alternative do we have? it can be helpful. i'm not saying it's an easy task . the secretary of state must or can solve it that i think he will make a if if the decision of the secretaries can come to an agreement for the two sides. it shows that the united states cares about this. otherwise the state will not allow it. and the president will not pick up the phone and call. positive, that is very . isthink the administration on the right track with regards to this. >> david, we would like to hear

from you especially your views on secretary himself, the person. his long involvement with afghanistan has been critical. >> as long involvement with the region, he has a very broad and strategic focus and his history and afghanistan has built him credibility. his personal work style, his ability to engage on a very tough issues, negotiate down to the very last minute, and keep negotiating as he has proven in his admirable efforts in the middle east and a lot of political negotiations when he was senator. byhink that is also seasoned the fact that he ran for president of the united states. he's been on the national stage in the way few others have been. the combination of qualities gives him a really unique potential.

the decisions can be facilitated, helped, explored by the u.s.. i will offer one other thing. -- his is resolved >> when it is resolved. associate very much myself with that correction. juste united states retreat into where we were six weeks ago in afghanistan and the history of not just relations with afghanistan but other countries as well is that there continue to be problems. we sometimes facilitate that problem by the almost overenthusiastic embracing of and then withdrawal when the crises are made. i think it's really important that when this crisis is resolved in the united states stay involved and we adopt a

about ourolicy engagement and we work very closely with the new afghan government. >> let me open it up to the audience. please wait until you are recognized and wait for the microphone to reach you. overll start in the back there, please. then i will move around the room. >> i'm a fulbright scholar from pakistan. my question is for ambassador khalilzad. afghan security forces are melting away in the face of the offensive. like we saw in the iss case in iraq. being, given the trends that i see them, it is unlikely.

they have faced considerable challenges in the course of the and areas that have been in the news on and off over the many years over the last decade. lot ande sacrificed a have held together. theudgment is as long as political problem that we both have been talking about, the elections coming to a successful and assistance to meaningtan is sustained that for as long as the afghan can afford to pay for the soldiers themselves, they need assistance for the broad -- from

abroad. part of the chicago agreement of that help.ning i'm fairly optimistic that the security forces will hold. there is also the issue that we have not talked about yet, the issue of the u.s.-afghan security agreement, the bilateral security agreement, and then the nato-afghanistan agreement. of course there is a need for a andtion to this problem relatively soon before the nato summit in early september so that both of these agreements are in place. both candidates have said they would sign those agreements.

that also is an additional element of reassurance and sustaining the kind of support that the afghan forces would need. , i amall of that optimistic now. some have raised the issue that you have not raised about what happens beyond 2016 when all u.s. forces, according to the current administration, will be out and it will be a small force under the embassy umbrella. we have been very positive about the administration's efforts dealing with this situation. here, i differ from the position of the administration, i think. i hope that the next president and thisistan

president for the next president of the united states would come to some agreement that would retain more forces, including some combat capability, for a variety of contingencies that we can talk about beyond 2016. here we are. with those conditions i described, i'm fairly optimistic that what you saw in northern iraq, alln western the places that i know quite i would say that they are , given the other things i have described, if they are in place, it is a contingent answer i've given.

david gives his answer, what contingencies are you referring to? internal contingencies are contingencies of the region? judgment is a talkedlar contingency about. let's say in terms of 2016 -- early 2017, if we do not have any combat forces there and assume the remnants of al qaeda are still there. predicts the ability to based on a lot of experience over the years, it's not very good to say we can predict exactly the problem will go away at that time. is how we are going

to deal with that problem? where would they take off to carry out that mission at that time? what is the answer to that problem? going to say that there are just a lot of challenges over the world so we will accept more risk there? is that the answer? todo we consciously decide take more risks there? when you have a vacuum, people will go there. so far -- andfied i have had conversations at various levels -- that i have a remainingr for this issue. although i know some people believe that problem will not be there by that time. such things have been predicted and promised before. i just think we need to be more

prudent than that. like david. i welcome that question. i spent the bulk of four years at the department of defense where my primary task was helping to build the afghan security oars as particularly the army. ince i left the government, have continued to monitor that very closely. the afghan security forces, the army a stronger today than it because of the fighting they have done. being on their round has made them a much better military. the danger of their collapsing in the near future, i would agree with ambassador khalilzad that it is so small we should not worry about it. in the near to mediate future i would worry about them almost becoming too powerful that some will call for a military coup, for example. that is a danger.

was thepened in iraq result of a failure of political leadership. the leaders of the iraqi military by and large have been boughtd by a group who their positions as kernels, brigadiers, generals from a president determined to have a sectarian army. if that happens in afghanistan that will at least split the military but it will not destroy, dissipate, but it will fight. that's one of the differences. i have worked closely with those who have trained the afghan military and they generally rate fighting capabilities significantly higher than the iraq he wants. it does not necessarily make things easier or better. it can make things worse. on a strategic level, there is a think isevel that i

centrally problematic for afghanistan and that is the of an al qaedaaq offshoot, and al qaeda successor. speech the other day from mr. al baghdadi who claimed himself the successor of osama an laden he said he has state. for the last year, there has witha very clear consonant the remaining leadership in afghanistan which has not been destroyed, not been eliminated. it has remained the core ideological center of a large group of people who are dedicated to a vision of a new world order, really. and this contest between al baghdadi and all zone where he -- al-zawiri, a sickly what they are saying of the al qaeda in

pakistan now, you have a chance. i created a state and it is actually closer to the heartland so everyone should follow me. i personally think it's unlikely that the zone here he -- al zawahiri will follow al baghdadi and isis. their. real challenge i extrapolated a bid from your question going a little off topic but i see that as a strategic challenge to become and in doing so seeking a way to compete with isis. here ande a question then i will move to the others. >> please identify yourself. >> my name is vladimir atrophic, former defector from serbia. i have been following this especially since the first and

second round as well. one of the things i wanted to point out is i understood there were 22 thousand polling places in afghanistan for the election and in the second round -- 22,00 0 polling places. in the second round, both tsmpaigns had the results shee including the person from the election commission and both of the campaigns received those papers signed by everybody's and 22,000 were not signed off. wereentioned the elections closed from the preliminary results announced yesterday. we saw there was a one million vote difference. why would you consider those elections closed? mentioned there is a need to negotiate and have some kind of a unity government. what if there is a scenario of a candidate who realizes from the

sheets that he is losing elections by big margins? we saw the preliminary results put him at 56%-44%. he starts yelling, fraud, fraud and then creating a situation where you have to negotiate with the losing side to include him in the government and he is under pressure as every candidate is. if you start threatening with an arising and you come into situation where you create a position for yourself to be negotiated into some kind of a power-sharing agreement, would that create a bad precedent for future elections and not just for afghanistan but other areas? places and more than one million votes off. why would we call it a closed

election? who created the fraud? you talked about president karzai -- >> let's get the answers to your questions, thank you. >> we call it a close election for a number of things and i will go back to what i said earlier about the margin of fraud being greater than the margin of error at least right now. in the first round, dr. of the left had a substantial -- dr. abdullah had a substantial lead. he reached out to a number of areas and increased turnout but the overall turnout in elections , the preliminary results from the first election were 7.1 million and for the second round , the preliminary results es,terday, the unaudited once was 8 million. that implies an increase of about one million votes in the

second round of the election. say there is wide skepticism in afghanistan and the international community toward that kind of level of increase in the overall vote in afghanistan even recognizing there was an increase in some areas that there were decreases in some areas. that is something that needs to be looked at closely. clearly i have talked about industrial-scale fraud which could be in the neighborhood. they are within that very broad margin of error. will it remain? i don't think so. very careful audit is necessary and i give credit to both sides of the came so close to coming up with an audit process that should still go forward. state department spokesman said, these do not determine the winner.

that was a fairly strong statement for the state department that it worked for for many years. >> on the issue of elections versus a deal, to negotiate something, i would say a couple of things. one is that both sides have agreed that the legitimate votes should be separated from the fraudulent ballots. he doesn't want a single fraudulent ballot. , by whata question process should that be different?

david said there was progress between the two finical teams. you make a point. legitimate processes increase the system, it comes to a judgment, and the voters choice needs to be respected. anything done outside that would put what your party does outside the realm of legitimacy. is giving the country legitimacy, and the risks going on. there is an enemy trying to

exploit these things. and gain both sides. they want to have an inclusive government. the challenge for diplomacy in , that can unite the country may not satisfy everyone. i think that is the space, in that. both afghan and international community need to focus on that space. >> i'm not taking sides here. both sides committed fraud. all sides. there was fraud at the local

level, the chair of election commission resigned amid charges of fraud. there is a huge amount that is unknown here. >> i'm going to take to two questions. >> hello. i wanted to ask as a young person with afghan and pakistani as a country with sure cultural customs, what challenges do you think the new in a u.s. will face in afghanistan diplomatic

relations? >> next question over here. then i will take another pair after this. >> i think the ambassador and david have mentioned that they have come a long way. yet to go a long way. do you think there is enough political maturity in the sites, youof afghan use the word facilitate every time. has theional community leverage also. leverage, theyt will come to terms because they need all the help in the world

for construction, building institutions, and move forward. the interesting part both of you -- who is actually tough neighborhood? >> both questions. >> the young lady on the question on the challenges of the future for u.s. afghan relations, my judgment would be that it is keeping the united states interested, focused. david spoke quite well. we did to attention when there is a crisis and son as disengage until the next crisis. there is a bit of afghanistan fatigue in the united states, and all the other

challenges around the world, the challenge for the young afghans from that region and the u.s. is to sustain or expand the nonsecurity elements of the relationship as people to people , as education, cultural, political, economic. dominant as be as it had been in recent times. that will be the challenge is a decline in interest. clearly there is a fatigue.

there is no appreciation for what david said. how much has been accomplished and afghanistan is fundamentally a different country than it was 10 years ago. that has been largely sanctioned by efforts of the united states. the united states is uniquely played a role in that. a million more afghans are alive today that would not be alive if it weren't of the efforts of the united states. how many afghan children are alive today that would not be alive. with regard to the issue of

facilitation, the thing you don't have to say a u.s.people know what the is in aanyone who leadership position appreciates that. i wouldn't go overboard beating people on the head to say about the u.s. leverage. the question is will they be able to translate that? appreciated in influence and presentation. i think people in that region do of react well to a kind direct threat of the environment. recipe -- and i'm not

saying that we are doing that. that we have a stake in their success. but we have done together, how and leverageome, works its own wonders. i don't think you need to be heavy-handed with regard to that leverage. -- at a few words? >> maturity of the political antem, the ability to offer emphatic yes. afghanistan is ready for that. i don't think it is appropriate, afghan leaders are very mature. they do have the capability in

the last year. we have seen military coups in egypt, thailand, countries that we would often have different points in our relationships called mature democracies. other countries in the region have had no terry gou's. -- military coups. exists in afghanistan. the question is, going back to what the ambassador said. how much will is there for people to act in national interests, in the ethnic interest? that is anywhere in the world. say that i support that, it is not with any view that this is of something that is easy or simple to do.

does afghans and have the capability and leaders to do this? we hear had an election in 2000 that had to go to our supreme court. democrats today still feel the election was stolen from them. counterure democracies stress points up with the system to the test. the question is how you respond to that. >> thank you. a question in the second row. then to that side. >> thank you. thank you. part of my question was -- student of security studies. part of my question was asked by ambassador. the other part was bringing

pakistan into the equation. we are having a security transition given that pakistan started military operations which has long been asked to start cracking down terrorists in that part of the world. is a coincidence that when there is an election going in afghanistan, operations or is it an-- accident? or is it preplanned? >> what steps do you think are necessary to resolve the conflict with the taliban? i care number which one of you pointed it out.

the leadership is sitting in pakistan. we have none of for a long time. there is a nice book out about this. what steps are necessary in order to resolve the security conflict? i know that a discussion in pakistan on how to deal with the , and the whole issue of the extremists in their. -- there. an urge to have a

cease-fire agreement. some incidents and actions response for forceful on the part of the pakistan argument.they one the i do not want to say civilian versus military. point asould make that part of the characterization of the situation. whether int know the afghanistan election was up in their thankful -- thinking. impact inng

afghanistan. even charges you have heard some afghans may have had. there is been a more intense engagement of how to deal with this. the national security advisers or and as lama bothered just a few days ago having a dialogue with the prime minister. there was some agreement as to what happened on the ground. the question of argued, i think i have

that we needed to find an understanding. i think we have not succeeded. pakistananistan and has been condemns as we have forces. seizes to be a sanctuary for the taliban. and that if we could achieve success, that would help a lot with afghanistan. and hardening afghanistan continuing sanctions generated timets would require more on the part of the united states , assuming we are committed to

success in afghanistan until it becomes too expensive to have a change of mind on the other side. i believe what is required is ideally from my point of view, talibana position leadership they would be able to support an afghan led negotiation by the future. both candidates have said they support that. say besidesould some we cannot as part of remit with afghanistan for you to use pakistan as a sanctuary for military operations. we support diplomacy and negotiation. there may be a process that can

be discussed. no longer use as a sanctuary. at the be no country, a sanctuary for groups against the other. for perhapsis room at the right time for diplomacy. in.ring other powers years. tried during the i know president bush hosted holbrooke with mr. and have tried. maybe it is some progress here and there. fundamentally the issue has not been resolved. that is a strategic shaping factor in this afghan palace

that -- pakistan problem. both countries have affected afghanistan more in the past. it is beginning to affect pakistan a lot. it needs to be dealt with in a separate manner. >> that is a topic we will probably need to hold for a whole session. regional effects. we already be on the time that we promised. also, to c-span. unless you want to add, if you would. appreciate the prerogative. in the interest of a promise to c-span, ice and to thank the ambassador,

and partners of the atlantic council. we appreciate your continued support of our work and your participation in these events. we always appreciate the participation of our audience. my apologize for those i cannot recognize for the questions. if you havet questions, as soon as i close this session you can come up and talk to our guest. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] talked about the potential threat syria poses to the u.s. and europe. that is next.

then a panel investigates child trafficking in the u.s. the white house says requested $3.7 billion to increase border security. we will talk with arizona republican congressman about border security challenges. as part of our spotlight on -- zine series, washington journal is live each morning on c-span. join the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> to an end to for the harlem book fair, discussions on the the black arts

movement. live coverage starts saturday morning on c-span 2. >> attorney general eric holder securitye about the threat of syria. he spoke at the u.s. embassy in norway. >> attorney general am a eric holder, to the podium. [applause] >> good afternoon. good afternoon. [laughter] custom.a norwegian people don't respond. [laughter] thank you for that wonderful introduction, and thank you for a warm welcome. ladies and gentlemen, distinguished guests, leaders and citizens -- it is a pleasure to be in norway.

and it's a great privilege to be in the beautiful city of oslo today. i'd like to thank the norwegian government -- and especially prime minister solberg and minister of justice anundsen, with whom i met earlier today -- for their hospitality. i'd also like to recognize our charge, julie furuta-toy, and the hardworking men and women of the u.s. embassy for bringing us together -- and for all that they do, every day, to advance our shared interests. it's an honor to join them -- and to stand with all of you -- in strengthening the ties that bind our nations together-- in discussing some of the most critical challenges the international community must confront, and in reaffirming our mutual commitment to the values we share, and the high ideals -- of democracy, liberty, and equal justice under law -- that have defined our nations' friendship over the past two centuries. that friendship, and those values, have deep roots.

norwegian-americans have played an important role in the development of our country. and your citizens and values have had an impact around the world. two hundred years ago, norway ratified a constitution that asserted certain essential and immutable rights. through centuries of triumph and challenge, our people and our governments have both been guided by a shared understanding that "all people are born free and equal." today, norway is a leader in extending worldwide the promise of equality and justice, through its own development work overseas, and through its support of international institutions. and norway leads global efforts to address urgent threats -- most recently in syria, where norwegian and american personnel are working side-by-side to rid that country of chemical weapons. around the world, norway is recognized as a champion of democracy and human rights. and, for decades, you've been leading by example.

after all, as history teaches us -- and as you've seen here in norway and we in the united states -- progress is not inevitable. and our democratic values, our open societies -- and our commitment to tolerance and inclusion -- must be continuously protected against agents of intolerance, extremism, and hate. particularly when hatred and extremism take expression in acts of violence and terror, we must be resolute in our protection of equal rights, democracy, and the rule of law. and we must be both innovative and aggressive in combating violent extremism in all its forms. it was just three years ago this month that norway endured devastating attacks on the government quarter of oslo and a workers' youth league summer camp -- heinous acts that shocked citizens everywhere, and earned swift condemnation and sympathy from around the world -- as president obama stated,

our hearts went out to you. horrific crimes like these are not only terrible tragedies for the individuals and the nations targeted-- they test our fortitude and challenge the very foundations of who we are. yet norway has not faltered or changed its values -- and is an example for the world in this regard as well. like norway, the united states is all too familiar with domestic threats, having suffered deadly attacks on our soil -- including against government buildings, places of worship, and sporting events. these attacks, like the attacks you suffered here in norway, share a common theme: they are attacks on tolerance, in the name of violent extremist ideologies. under the obama administration, while we have acted to protect our country and our allies, we have also redoubled our commitment to civil rights and to tolerance. this is what violent extremists most fear, for their goal is to

undermine open societies. at the same time, we also have joined with our international partners to ensure that there is no impunity for those who seek to commit terrorist attacks. now, norway, the united states, and countries around the world face a new threat -- the possibility that violent extremists fighting today in syria, iraq, or other locations may seek to commit acts of terror tomorrow in our countries as well. u.s. intelligence officials estimate that nearly 23,000 violent extremists are currently operating in syria. among these are over 7,000 foreign fighters -- among whom are dozens of americans, a number that is growing. we have a mutual and compelling interest in developing shared strategies for confronting the influx of u.s.- and european-born violent extremists into syria. and because our citizens can freely travel, visa-free, from the u.s. to norway and other

european states -- and vice versa -- the problem of fighters in syria returning to any of our countries is a problem for all of our countries. this is a global crisis in need of a global solution. the syrian conflict has turned that region into a cradle of violent extremism. but the world cannot simply sit back and let it become a training ground from which our nationals can return and launch attacks. and we will not. in the face of a threat so grave, we cannot afford to be passive. rather, we need the benefit of investigative and prosecutorial tools that allow us to be preemptive in our approach to confronting this problem. if we wait for our nations' citizens to travel to syria or iraq, to become radicalized, and to return home, it may be too late to adequately protect our national security.

that's why we need to adopt a multilateral four-pronged strategy to combat this threat, to counter violent extremism in all its forms, and to keep our citizens safe. the first element of our united approach must be to ensure that there are laws in our systems that enable governments to properly police that threat. in its rabat memorandum, the global counterterrorism forum -- a group of 30 countries from around the world, working in partnership with the un -- stated that "criminalizing preparatory acts, such as conspiracy, terrorist fundraising, terrorist recruitment, planning and training, particularly when a terrorist attack has not yet been carried out, is vital in an effective criminal justice preventive approach to counterterrorism." in this regard, the u.s. relies on a statute that criminalizes the providing of "material support to terrorist organizations."

our material-support law, which was originally enacted in 1994 and amended after the attacks in new york on september 11, 2001, bars not only contributions of personnel, cash, weapons and other tangible aid to designated terrorist organizations, but also intangible means of support -- such as training, service, and expert advice or assistance. similarly, in 2013, norway amended its laws to criminalize preparatory acts to terrorism, including training for terrorism, preparation for terrorism and participation in a terrorist organization. likewise, in 2012, france enacted a new statute that enables prosecutors to charge individuals with "criminal association with the intent to commit terrorist acts." earlier this year, french authorities sentenced the nation's first three defendants under this new law-- all three

were plotting to travel to syria. today, i urge governments around the world to consider similar