because it was not see the u.s.o condemn cuba at the general assembly of the u. n., due to policies. u.s. was also looking at cuba as a sponsor of international terrorism, and this is all changing. bigger is better, and dialogue space that's beg open, cuba but with all the countries that supported . thank you for inviting me so that angoala and the u.s. can

meet under the auspices of the strategic partnership dialogue did much that we period in this which mr. secretary has been in office. this and he visited us year, and we met during the african u.s. and this shows the commitment of the u.s. in a very positive way, and we would like to encourage this effort on the part of the u.s. thank you very much. >> the first question. >> thank you. mr. secretary, there is a lot going on in the world so i hope

you will indulge me about asking for two topics. first on cuba several members of congress have already made their opposition known to lifting the trade embargo and relateded message announced today. how do you expect the political atmosphere here in the united states to affect your efforts to normalize relations with cuba? and second, you met with alan gross today and you talked a bit about that. but how did you perceive his health and demean snr tell us about how he is doing. second on the -- >> third. >> fair enough. palestinian leaders are planning to submit a resolution as early as this afternoon, perhaps they've already done it. that would demand an israeli pullout. what is your understanding of the status of that resolution at this time? and how would the united states respond to it? and to what extent does the plan submission of this resolution undermine your efforts earlier this week to find common ground between

israelis and palestinians? are nally, how concerned you on maritime security that the gulf of guinea will become a bigger problem for angoala and its neighbors? and what extent does that come up today? thank you. >> well, i don't know whether i'm going to answer in english r in portuguese. i think this conference is particularly important and we should congratulate the ambassador of the united states cause you know very recently oongola was faced with a tourist attack on one of its platforms and we did not realize until up until now how important and serious the threat was in the gulf of

guinea. but what we've got to look at is the gulf of guinea represents a lot and there is about 25% of world crude oil in the gulf of guinea. but you also have many countries and borders and a lot of trade within the region. so the it is particularly important. and that is why this conference is going to be a conference on security and energy. most of the countries in the region produce oil which is naturally consumed by the international community. so we think that unless we ddress very well this issue of having a navy that is capable in the region. but if we can't do it then we will have to have our partners, the united states, france, and others, who are our

international partners. we eventually can work with our armies to make sure that we guarantee security in that particular region. i think that one of the issues we will also be interested, i think some of the pairsy comes from within -- piracy comes from within the states of the region. i think that one will have to be handled by government within the region. so i think we need to work on all these aspects of the oblem so that we solve the problems. so we will go to talk during the conference, propose solutions, and then looking at how local government will do their part and how we can bring in our partners as well so that we can guarantee security in that region. >> thank you. with respect to the members of congress, the members of congress who oppose what the

president did today and the administration absolutely share the same goal. we want a cuba that is free. we want a cuba where human rights are respected, where it is democratic and the people of the country have the ability to make choices. the president's announcement open up alculated to opportunity both for the people of cuba but also to begin to break down the barriers that have existed for all these years so that we can hopefully make progress on the other issues of concern. the democracy, human rights, the ability of people to move, ravel, and make choices. and we're confident that the choices the president made today are going to make some difference. in the hope

normalization process, which we will engage in now, that further progress will be made and we also hope that over the course of the next months and years the people of cuba are going to change cuba. and that is what i think will happen here. now, we recognize some members have strong feelings about it as do some people in the country. but these are the choices one has to make. and we welcome the debate. we will obviously engage with congress very, very closely when congress returns next year, and hopefully people will see ultimately the wisdom and the possibilities of these openings. for many years we have engaged bigger, far far more threatening, in some cases more repressive in various places in the world because we have to deal with governments that are there. and when you remain isolated you really cut yourself off from any potential.

if a policy hasn't worked in 60 years, you know the old saying if you you are digging a hole and getting deeper and deeper, stop digging. and i think a lot of people feel this is the time for change. life is different, the world is different, communications are different, people have access to more information. we will not stop standing with civil society or fighting for human rights or fighting for democracy. all of those are part of the agenda. and the president very specifically said that in going to the summit of the americas and panama, cuba's participation hibles is conditioned by this notion that civil society will also take part and that human rights and democracy will be on the agenda. and it should be on the agenda. so we are quite ready to have a good dialogue with congress and we hope that people will see the wisdom of the choice the president -- courageous choice the president made today. gross, pect to alan

look, this is a man who just won his freedom. just touched down in america five years after imprisonment. and i know from our efforts over the course of the last few years even when i was in the senate we engaged in efforts to try to see if their release could be won. and most recently i talked with the foreign minister a number of months ago when al an's mother was very, very sick and we hoped to have him released before she passed away. we didn't succeed. and alan was very despondnt. i know i wrote him a personal note at one point in time to -- because we were concerned and his lawyers and his wife was particularly concerned about his state of health. today i saw a man who is rejuvenated by freedom, by seeing his wife again, by being restored to american soil, and

by knowing that he had made it. he told me he was boyied always by his own sense of humor and i think you saw touches of that today. so i am confident. he asked for his privacy. i'm sure at some point people will get to know him better. but for the moment i think boudly and man who strongly ly and extolled gratitude for being an american and being back in the united states. with respect to the resolution we haven't seen the language yet we don't know precisely what is in there. we were troubled by language that was out there. mature for us to

comment on something we don't know yet. we don't have a problem with them filing a resolution provided its done with them working with people to see how we can move forward. what we are focused on is reducing the violence, reducing the sense of confrontation, the g to make certain that people of israel can conduct their election in an atmosphere where they can focus on their issues internally, not externally imposed. and you are hope is to be able to advance the process, not set it back. that's our goal. with respect to it undermining the chances of long-term reform, that depends. i don't believe that will happen if people act responsibly. and if people come together, work together, exert an effort to try to find the common ground here, i am confident that the people of israel are as interested in peace as are

the people of palestine, the west bank, jordan and the region. but this is not the moment to opine on that process. there's an election under way and i think we need to see it progress and pull our efforts together in the most constructive way possible. and that will come through consultations. >> because of my bad english -- >> i would like to know from mr. secretary if whether after this meeting with our ministry of foreign relations of an goala, what can we exspect in terms of result in terms of bilateral cooperation?

for example, will we see a growth of the american investment in our economy? which is not only limited to oil. >> we hope so. we very much hope so. and this effort to expand and broaden the base of our investment was very much the subject of our conversation when previously met. we didn't talk about it today although we mentioned investment but we specifically talked about it. and it is very much an objective of the united states. and what we want to do is strengthen the bilateral relationships so that we can make progress oball of the multilateral issues but also on the bilateral issues. which means education, exchange, infrastructure development. there are many things we think we can do on health and health care and other kinds of things. we are prepared -- technology. technology transfer. so we understand the challenge in an goala of infrastructure

development. one of the main challenges, i think. and we feel there are many ways in which the united states could be helpful in that process, where we would like to be able to cooperate. we definitively, particularly in the age of climate change, and in an age where many people are looking for diversity with respect to energy sources, we want to have a diversified economic relationship with angoala and that means broadening its base. but to attract, as the minister knows better than anybody, attracting investment and attracting capital requires certainty, clarity in the rules of the road, transparency and accountability. and we need to make certain that all of those ingredients are also very much part of our conversation which they will be as part of the dialogue that we re engaged in. thank you all very much. appreciate it.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> welcome, prime minister. we have two things to ask you about today. the first is on climate change and the second is radicalization. >> before we start, i think it might be right after the events

of yesterday and today -- i just want to say it's right to pitcher be to those who were murdered in australia. today this appalling outrage in pakistan. i'm sure the thoughts will be with the families and loved ones of those who parish. in australia, there are tales of extraordinary bravery and sacrifice now being told about what happened in that half fan that is what we would expect from people from that remarkable and great country. the scale of what has happened simply defies belief. it is a dark day when something on this scale happens with no justification. there is no belief system in the world that can justify this kind of appalling act. i think when this shows is the worldwide threat that is posed by this poisonous ideology of extremism islamist terrorism. it has nothing to do with one of

the world's great religious, islam, a religion of peace. this is a perversion. we have to recognize what we face in this country, but also as we see around the world. we must with our allies use everything we have in our we must, with their allies do everything we can to defeat it. the values of freedom, democracy -- i say to the committee as i have before, i think this will be the struggle of our generation. we will have to show every bit of resilience. i'm sure, members of the committee would agree. >> we very much endorse what you have just said. i think it is appropriate to say, the second part of this will be talk about how to tackle radicalism. the all too familiarity of the

hostage event of sydney. to turn now to climate change. >> another issue of her generation, which relates to the conditions of climate stability, the preconditions of the success of the human species for the last several hundred years. i personally believe -- this is the greenest government, in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. without introducing an inappropriately partisan note, it will prove to the next parliament, to make a decision about the budget that covers the period of 2028 to 2032. another reason is success was giving the eu the challenging

target of reducing greenhouse emissions. and also, avoiding adding unnecessary targets for renewals. do you think that if we continue to playing an important role, we have to continue along the same path, would you be able to resist the call -- that comes really from the whole political spectrum -- to flow down on progress of the carbon as in our economy? part of their investment is needing does add to cost. >> i think we will.

i think we're put this legislation in place and followed. as a result, we have seen further reductions in emissions. britain is the first new renewable plant. a lot of good things are being done. to answer your question directly, yes, i think we will continue. we have to make the decision in 2016. my only hesitation is, we have to see carbon reduced at the lowest cost. on carbon capture and storage, which is absolutely crucial, we're put a lot of money into carbon capturing storage experience, but we haven't yet gotten the ion understanding a

workable system. i think before we commit to the next stage, we need to know more about whether gaskin played a role in a carbonizing system. so, i think it is yes, but before we say yes, we must have a better understanding. >> is it possible to get people to switch off the electricity for financial reward? this is an adopted quite widely in the u.s. we need to make sure that we had the lead in europe -- in this which is very cost effective. >> it has changed completely,

the national electricity market. used to be one big grid -- it was a one-way system -- now there is a two-way system. it is not just a small grade, it is opportunity for businesses and public services to be able to effectively reduce their demand, without any effect on the services they provide, and be financially rewarded. i think the technology is changing so fast, what you think may be the right way to do it today may be replaced by some other technology. the technology is moving very fast. >> moving on to emissions trading.

many of us see this market instrument as a very effective -- in fact, the most effective way to get a good value for money. china has reached -- it looks as though china has reached the same conclusion. will you continue to make sure that britain leads the pressure for performing the eu system? secondly, do you recognize an opportunity now that we are moving towards different amounts, for what would potentially be a very large revenue stream -- decide invested in climate change --

but the remainder of that could be used to cut taxes since businesses will pay for a large portion of the offset. that money could effectively be recycled for lower taxes for businesses and individuals. >> first of all, the question whether we should continue to read this reform -- yes, absolutely. not only is the essential for europe, if we do not see improvement in europe, we could be disadvantaged in britain. it makes a big difference in our common carbon price here and have carbon price in europe. this is also great for europe, and essential for britain. what we have to stop is this --

inappropriate use of climate. on the issue what do we do with the revenues -- obviously, we still have a large deficit. that is the primary use of these sorts of resources. i do agree with that thinking that says -- if we want to be, we should be very pro-business government. the more we can help businesses by reducing taxes, we should. >> finally, emissions trading has been a success, and will spread across the globe -what -- do you think we can reduce our emissions? do you think there's an

opportunity for us, a market for these concepts invented here in britain? >> my understanding is that there is some other countries that have accurately copied our legislation, like denmark. some other countries our have accurately copied legislation, like denmark. i think the only thing if we do it again, the thing i would change is -- a u do not want underneath specific concepts -- we want to reduce carbon at the lowest cost, i think other

targets can get in the way. the eu 2030 ating package. naturally have binding targets, as has happened in the past. lowest cost t the -- i think we have a good system, something we can recommend to others. helpful uld be really that ow what is the issue government -- in terms of the new package on air quality, and also on resource efficiency. it seems to me, if we will be with ssful in dealing energy issues, that our government actually report those proposals? national pport the

the maximum amount of -- i think what your question to es from is the proposal withdraw -- i may want to look more closely at what is being back to you. come we tried to support sensible measures where pollution is crossing boundaries. see excessive to regulation. >> i think the issue is that being made as is we speak. justin levine, about the issue of energy subsidies, clearly sums up to energy fossil fuels --

eu is ct that the ambitions cuts targets, there's also the prospect of the eu climate deal paris, i ear in do you fare the such climate deal can't make the majority of our carbon reserves. why are n't burn oil, you encouraging more oil extraction? is the things -- oone issue of subsidies, and carbon subsidies.

i would argue that we do not in this e carbon country. countries to other reduce carbon. i do not accept that. i believe that hydrocarbons have a role to international energy system. that carbon capturing them will come about. for many years to come, and gas will still play a role in our energy supply. i think it should. lets decarbonize

comes less of where that from -- you would need a very large amount of subsidize energy. you would have a very expensive energy bill for consumers, i do not want to see that. i think it is great to care for the oil industry. it is vital for our country, us energy security. i think carbon caption for the future will in ble gas to play a part the industry. i think we should use tax what is -- do environmentally sensible, as well as economically sensible.

it makes sense that we encourage the industry to decommission oil and gas platforms in an environmentally sensible way. tax system has a use for making sure that we achieve those two goals. if the argument is the should not do anything by changing the tax system, i do not accept that. less turn to nuclear. shouldn't you -- i accept that nuclear is being subsidized by the government. >> i do not accept that. i will tell you what we are make -- we are trying to sure -- you have to stand back and ask what are we trying to do?

you always want to have the the ction in carbon in lowest cost, at the same time we want to secure energy supplies to power our economy. diverse energy supplies means we do not rely on any one fuel, or any one part of the world. a nuclear supporting industry, supporting renewable energies as they come, and supporting gas. that is our policy. as part of that, i think it is great to have the regeneration of the british nuclear industry. if we do not have that, and if oil and gas, we of a be in a bit difficulty. we would only have renewable do not think that would work. if the subsidies coming from the fact that we are giving a

per kilowatt ice the future -- it is a subsidy into the price offered in the nuclear power station practice -- that subsidies actually lower -- the price is we offer to hat offshore wind. so i do not think that we are treating nuclear unfairly as compared to renewable energy. >> i think the government is actually providing greater subsidies to nuclear because of the timeframe involved -- to interrupt you, but it is a very long-term

project, and enormous. >> but the government is actually being less helpful as onshore wind energy is concerned. dclg has actually intervene in has farm applications as actually intervene in wind farm applications as recently as june 2013. >> i think there's a very joint approach. i think -- i think. billy for what we are saying about onshore wind. as with other renewable technologies, there was a subsidy in the early days. heading for around 10% of our electricity to come from onshore wind. in my view, that is enough as far as the balance energy supply. the planning t

system, we could get past 10%. that is enough as far as balancing is applied. away the take subsidy, and then see if they want to see anymore. deciding, y're not are they? respect of fracking, i'm is sure why the government subsidizing fracking, because it is not a new technology, is it? i do not accept that. are not subsidizing fracking -- as we stand today, there are gas wells ntional britain.

yet, some shell reserves have to provide gas for this country. again, it is a nascent energy a we are not giving it subsidy -- we are just saying there should be a tax regime on it get dustry to help going. 1% of the revenues can go to as local community, as much 10,000,000 pounds. your if this happened in area -- the same at 100% of the business rate can be retained by the local authority. this could be 1,000,000 pounds to 2,000,000 pounds. a means a community benefits from the development of a resource.

i think that is very important see this industry grow. i would argue that those are big and unfair subsidies. this industry will have to make a profit in order to succeed -- let's move on. thank you. prime minister, in its annual in 2013 2014, it was described as a key partner in to u.k. -- then he goes on say that the current projected in the f investment u.k.'s green economy is less than half of the required rate. there has been report which shows that

the 1,000,000,000 pounds that the investment bank was expected to make available this a new loans, r been taken llion had out. in the projections of march, we are well down, about 20% of that rate. to t do you think you can do improve that? >> i think there are two questions. one is, are we attracting enough investment into our energy industry at a time when massive investments -- investment in renewables, investments in nuclear. we need a smart grid. on that question, i would argue an enormous as been

uplift in this government -- i investment has been four years then previous parliaments. there any her day, is other country in the world has such a long-term and open plan for future investment? they basically said no. if you're an energy investor, britain is a great place to invest. on that part we are doing great. on the green investment date, we gave it 3.8 billion of capital and has not spent that money yet. right start s the -- it should be a seed investment, levering in money the private sector.

right now it has money, and has seed investment to do. >> i agree. the problem is, it cannot seem spend the money. its think it spent 1.6 of 3.8 million. i'm sure we will see it ramp up. there are plenty of opportunities. look to try y and and answer your question, but i get from banks, pension funds, there's usually positive about investing in britain. largest energy and market than anywhere else in the world. would the surface it

appear that if only a portion has been used, there is a blockage somewhere. borrowing ed to start when we could see our deficit and debt situation. i do not sense that there is a problem. again, i will look and see if there's a better answer to what you're saying. >> if you can pursue that a bit further -- it may be premature to advocate increasing the capacity of the allowing it d, but, market row on the open to invest as a conventional bank does -- but if we are to reach the environment some at some states, unless

we are to plan more money in, that will be necessary. the moment, borrowing powers would not be given until the debt has fallen means the time has been postponed because of the public sector finances, which if it sidered an in court became appropriate to do so. >> i do not think it is necessary. if a third of the capital is gone, and it keeps doing that over the next three years, we will get to where we need to be. the two things should miraculously come together.

[indiscernible] there are plenty of lending institutions out there. there are plenty of pension to ds that are desperate invest in energy. remember, with our system, people can see how much money support out there to renewable investments. renewable energy enterprise because of the way obligations were -- you know what you will get as far as returns. >> moving on. recognize that -- an we are given -- interesting point.

the want to talk about climate fund. of climate change, cause of climate change has been the industrialization of the modern world. you would be a great champion 2015 sustainable framework, how do you see climate change is part of that framework? >> it absolutely must be part of it. goal is that -- it will get to defuse -- i good ban ki-moon did a job recently to narrow down the dozens of people, climate, prosperity. climate change has to absolutely be a part of it.

the n that context, use litigation -- do you think there's any particular u.k. interest? poorest hink given the countries have less subsidies, on poor t be targeted countries, or should all developed countries be able to access it? >> they're not hard and fast answers to these. there are some countries, small states for example that are feeling the effects of climate change already. we should do both. should try -- the poorest countries are the ones to do olice capacity things, they need the most help. a world ays goes on in favor the tend to the poorest le in

countries, because they do not have the capacity to take action. developed countries access financing -- we should not rule out using this funding to help other countries. i think we should try and get the maximum value of the money when we do this. but, we have made good and generous offers of supporting -- i cannot give you a percentage. i think it is both. i think is where the biggest return can be found. in my view -- think generally speaking, say with aid spending, we should focus on those dates that have the least capacity to help themselves.

traditionally that means conflict hit states, and the poorest states that cannot generate revenues. >> the green climate fund is to pprovide new funding -- you said that 720 word count towards oda. of y simply taking it out other projects. >> i do not really accept that. we have an aid budget. we have sent some of that can be used for climate science. some of that money is going to the green climate fund. you can argue whether that is but is money not, that was not in the green fund and now it is. under our gue, umbrella, that is money that is going to purpose.

the hat is not to all partners -- what is to stop the oney that we put in the fund from being used for winter lysate in turkey, or being used for schools in somalia, or somewhere else. are arguing -- do we use money that is in the eu? i would agree. if -- obviously any fun we give money to, we should work as as we can to make sure that it does not waste that the y and they spent in right way. i think the contribution we climate fund n will do that. we literally target screen

one with 16 million, it's been reduced to 10. do we need other countries to sit back and say, in the u.k. does the heavy lifting? would it be easier for us to work with other countries to say why don't you match us? >> i was criticized for holding back on the green climate fund. exactly that -- i went to ban ki-moon's conference in i would r and said that deliver, trying to deliver an eu deal on climate change. but, i held back on making a contribution to the green fund. i said i wanted to see other people's money before we put our money and. i think it is a mixture likely. i think sometimes it is worth

other times worth holding back. it can work to leave earned money to say we were only given will be matched by others. i think we should do all those methods. >> i welcome that. we know that the new australian of ernment is in denial climate change -- do you think are doing enough? >> i think they are doing more. look, it is a sovereign country. it has to make his own decisions. there has also been a very big carbon prices -- that they

recognize, they do not want to be on the back burner. it is a great country, and clearly affected by climate change. i think they will do more. we should recognize, europe has what is necessary to show real leadership. >> but, the only reason they won't -- think o not think -- i they will fill pressure and want to do more. we should try and encourage their own way, n rather than saying there's a preordained group that they have to follow. america has proved to reduce their carbon emissions. the president ed to make some interesting on climate change,

delivered through executive motions rather than congress. is t we are doing there standing back -- we want to get a global deal. every country has its own politics. of my constituents have jobs where energy is used at extremely high levels. and yet, we are trying to need e the public that we to lower energy use. messages to fficult communicate. just yesterday -- clearly the application that will affect futures of jobs. are he one hand, there

the shell to agreement, on the other hand who e are certainly people need them prices to go down. does the prime minister agreed that the signs is not finished until it is -- >> definitely. of time saying t -- i value the work that scientists did. i think there's some myths that to get over. the method nuclear power is inherently unstable. there myths that we need to a nfront if we will be stable, science-based, successful country. say, the scientists --

out and them to get communicate it. constant need a message -- a consistent message from government on climate change. you are one of the members of government that has been a little off pace, to say the least. >> i think the government has a very clear policy -- be a very green government. we are the greenest government ever. i strongly believe that cutting carbon at the lowest cost -- i think that sometimes in disagreements. the ink cutting carbon at lowest cost. i think that wind farms that are being built will not be necessary. do not need more the subsidized onshore -- get rid

of the subsidy, and put it back into the system. a case, they will make the case. i do not think they will. enough is enough. of going back to the role aand scientists i've asked before, what is the need for them to take a it independent role and advise others honestly. it becomes viable to the government comes out with a consistent message. >> i agree. i think the government has a consistent message. i think the fact that we now very scientists is a strong thing. urge them to speak

robustly to their ministers. we do not just one policy driven by science, we want sites to be included. they have that role to play. things that down the line is important. we have had things that have happened about which i do not we have had significant enough scientistific warning. >> one of the reason that we consistent message -- there are different agendas of some of the media. some real problems in scientific ld

stories. it makes it so easy for back and ts to fall a says this, minister b says that. you would not do it in party politics in the media -- i think -- it is a debate. often -- >> i want the government to stay consistent based on evidence. >> yes. >> two concerns. well, fracking is a new industry. place it e ever to

went disastrously wrong. you put regulations on fracking companies? know that -- should we be looking to precautionary measures? >> i think we have got a good regime in place. >> are you aware of any self-monitoring of any fracking company? >> anything above a shock of -- would result in an operators

shut down. again, i think it is good that a debate about fracking -- a sensible debate. sometimes we look at the emails and et from constituents lobbying groups -- when i've some of the f at mythbusting, i hope we can encourage the media to bust and look hese myths, rationally. have the uld actually environment agency going in and test after each frack. light t we have a traffic system -- that is what we have. in place after. is what i'm worried about

the self-monitoring. does tthe environmental agency you the concern -- can give us a commitment that this impact monitoring of fracking? >> i do not see that it would. from everything i've heard about this, there is a large of regulatory hurdles. too complicated -- you have licensing processes, etc. in the end this debate will only be won or lost when there are some wells in britain carrying out unconventional gas recovery, be people can see this can without anly,

environmental problems, with benefits for us. benefits for industry and the potential to have more secure gas, but also maybe environmental benefits -- think of using gas in our homes for cooking and eating, a fact that has been produced here, that is good for the environment. >> you are asking the environment to take an awful does the -- why -- will you vary social impact t -- >> i'm very happy to look at that.

justin comment on self-monitoring activity -- companies do lose their permits. spot checks are done. i'm happy doing all these details. i see -- i do not believe that this is an industry in danger of regulation. >> this is not coming to whitney anytime soon -- >> i would be happy very happy if it did. i visited the oil rounds -- i went to see the conventional and gas recovery. small they kable how are. that would actually be smaller than those. >> but it would be one-mile in the ground and horizontal --

and no one has executed this before. onshore gas and not say ite, iit does be t people have to consulted -- is it just an expectation, or the in obligation? i think this compelling we can rely -- >> everyone is consulted. >> it does not say that. >> in planning, everyone is able to put the point -- read surprised when i this, fracking uses less water than a golf course in one month. >> no one knows at what point of chemicals are taken out when the , and groundwater is transported to

-- e sort of well to restore 20 miles aways. there also is a potential dangers. but, it's too late when the license has been granted. >> as far as any the action to your describing -- these would likely be a legal, and companies will lose their license. i wannt to be clear, my view is that if shell gas can do it safely and local commuter should do it. problem part of the again -- then back to the big groups t -- some green are anti-gas just for the fact that it is a carbon-based fuel. they are posing it with this

sort of religiosity. i think that is frankly wrong. my view is -- if we can recover gas onshore in a safe way, let's do it. you were minister, published -- >> i have not seen it. give you my copy. >> i will look at it. you have asked me a lot of points. any already -- frack site will have a full environmentally assessment. will be published? >> tthat's the way our planning system works.

[indiscernible] tell me -- there's not a danger that we may overpromise the number of jobs, especially local jobs, that will be created? >> you are absolutely right. for figure has been given the 64,000 jobs, i do not think anyone can be certain what will happen. happened in t has america -- many more jobs. examining should be this industry, aand seeing what it can do for british jobs, and british communities, british energy. my objection to the green

groups, they do not want to any of this -- they cannot bear another carbon-based energy source. i danger of -- can just ask, again on the employment issue. clearly the number just depends on the amount of gas that is recovered. we do -- what can you do to speed up the process of exploration? >> we try to do that in a of ways -- by trying to make sure that the number of and planning commissions the company needs is not too onerous. what i was talking about in chemicals, and planning. need to ink, we also try and make sure the industry skills it requires.

you can do all these things, but i think it is only when the first few wells are up and running, and people can go and visit it -- only at that point will the industry really get going. that might you think be? >> i'm hoping that the first first wells be be dug next year. >> and then the gas will be coming out the year after that? this industry -- wells are the first will go quite

quickly. >> could you say anything about under what circumstances you might support fracking in national parks? >> we have said only in exceptional circumstances. there's certainly a higher threshold to be crossed. i think again, this will come back to -- i was very struck when i went and saw the conventional feeds. they have said now this is been here for 10 or 20 years, and now we know what there is a forest road movements, we can see the scale. it is when that happens that i think the industry will be viewed in a different light. they will see that there's much

less to worry about than i thought. >> taking facking to national park something a very big challenge. your answer -- the on golf courses -- >> i was making the point. >> my committee made its first report urging -- four years heard efore many had even of it. just to put the concern of her tremors t -- were not strong enough to feel on the surface, i do not think are all that series of an anxiety.

gas could -- you agree that one way to kickstart the process and achieve what wells out - get a few there, do you think one way would be extending incentives a little further for a limited period? so, anyone who agrees to allow in the community, the gas to to be exploited, would get extra incentives? number of d quite a demonstrations of operations up running quite soon. that might allow the large-scale rollout. >> i'm open to suggestions. came up with 100,000 pounds, the chance of factored in a

sovereign fund for north of england. i do not think the problem the communities cal saying -- if only there was another 1%, we would go for this. i think the problem is, people are worried about this and concerned. only when they see and are happy with what has will go for.tthey >> let's turn to radicalization. you set up and shared the extremism task force. what has it been doing since november? again, reminding ourselves what this was all about.

the government has a clear policy on tackling extremism. light of the n murder of -- it was right to bring people together. and thing, i would actually the process of tackling extremism -- prisons, schools, unive some of which have been put into force in front of the house. the there will be subsequent meetings to see if there are more things that we need to do or check up on. it is the way i work. i bring together ministers. it's working like that. >> how much priority if you

compare your agenda on the day you started as prime minister. where is it in your list of ?riorities twin priorities -- and national rity security. you go back, if you read one my speeches -- if you go back in opposition, i made a lot of speeches about the of islamic extremists,

beneath it ideology -- i think it is still very relevant today. generational struggle. in the three beaten with all in the toolbox. regrettably, i'm spending more i'm holds -- the problem we're facing is a series. despite

>> people who are self radicalized -- that is harder to prevent. -- billionsillions

stillspent, there are more people being radicalized. what has gone wrong with the agenda? we using authority figures? we don't seem to be able to get into the dna of the community to identify the lone wolves. how do we get to them? that is the issue, isn't it? >> it is. we have to do everything. i would argue that the buildup of the intelligence services has made a difference. modern policing practices have helped. if you are saying we are not

doing enough to challenge the underlying narrative that has been the starting point for some people to be seduced from a thatate islam to something accepts the narrative of the -- emist >> we seem to be getting to that tipping point. >> i agree. a lot of work is being done with leaders in that muzzle and communities and with social media in order to do that. i thought the australian social media response is incredibly powerful. people can move very quickly.

this is a total perversion of islam. sometimes people can feel like they are being targeted. we have got to drive these people out of our communities, national life. this is the difficult bit. sometimes people say we are against the extremist terrorists, but we also need to oppose the world view that says victims.ms are sometimes people except that narrative. that is not good enough. >> we do.

i represent moslems. the point of representing a multi-cultural country. mother who say to a tries to help? and then says i feel betrayed by the police. don't you think that since the wrong message to parents? how do we tell them that they and not see their children again? >> i did not hear the argument.

we have to trust our policing and justice system to deliver results. --you are saying should we when young people are at danger of radicalization -- should we pull them away from that side using persuasion and different programs, as well as the harder end arrest and prosecution? yes, of course we should. , theeverything i have seen police intelligence services do that a lot. people beingop radicalized? >> if you spent time with the police and intelligence services, they can give you come as examples of people who are pulled away from radicalization.

we need to triage people in the right way. at the end of the day, we have to allow the police and the prosecuting system to work to tackle those who are threatening. >> you talked about the darknet in relation to child abuse. fact, the darknet in relation to terrorism is much darker and deeper. it is used to finance terrorism. the internet companies who came to your seminar promise to do various things. should we be doing so much more as far as these efforts are concerned? have you looked at the possibility of setting up an internet watch foundation for those who want to report? isn't this all happening far too late? think -- we are doing all

of those things. interesting, last week the internet companies took massive steps forward. i said you have to stop people from using vulgar terms to search for images. they said, that is impossible. amount of searches on google are down by 80%. we need to encourage them to do that. one stepsmade bigger the child-abuse front than they have on the terrorism front. my argument is that they are similar. they are taking down images. -- there areing organizations that work to take

down terrorist images and websites. we need to keep doing that. we've got a long way in the last couple of years, but we have more to do. >> is there evidence of radicalization -- we know about the trojan war schools -- is that a worry to you? is that something being contained by people in education? >> it is a worry. i would say this is not purely confined to birmingham. we have had instances of schools and other parts of the country who have had backing from groups that have views on the extremism narrative that are inappropriate. we have had to act in some cases. do we have in place all the necessary powers? if we can get everyone to

understand what it is we are fighting against, i think this new duty that we are passing is that all public bodies have a duty to prevent radicalization and extremism -- i think that is a very harmful thing. countries or the institutions at high-risk. it is everybody. sometimes some of these organizations have been a bit too relaxed. thought it was free speech. what was the problem? in fact, it is a problem. [inaudible] sense is degrading and party?ing isil a

i>> it is a priority. the problem is the extremist narrative. we saw that with al qaeda in and instan, in mali, somalia. the current manifestation is isil. is not a terrorism body that is found a willing host. it is a terrorism body that runs a state, has land, has money, has revenue. we will not deal with the problem of the terrorist narrative unless we aggressively isil.eal with there is no short-term easy answer.

multiyearlong-term, strategy to help the regional players to eradicate this organization. sure ine going to make a big coalition that we don't is an iraqig, this lead, the united states are doing a great deal, the united we are just a small part of a coalition. >> if you look at the kinetic action, the bombing that has iraq, britain has taken the second-largest role. way.ld put it in a simple this alliance has a strategy, which is very str simple and government ind, a

iraq and syria with a government that are capable of representing and not allow a terrorist to thrive. they could take many years. it toestion is, what is make a strategy more likely? my test for the national security council is what in terms of military resources can help the strategy? to create ange iraqi government that does all the things that they want to do? what can we do to help put pressure on the syrian regime for a proper transition? that is the framework we should approach. we can do all of everything. we should work out where does britain have some expertise and some heft we can bring to that.

that's why i'm sure your committee's work can be very helpful. >> [inaudible] >> you get a lot of returnees from syria. we going to add to the problem of radicalization imprisons? is it a real problem question mark have we got evidence that people became radicalized in prison? >> the answer to that is, yes. several hundred people in prison who were not arrested or convicted of terrorist offenses, but who nonetheless have been radicalized with an extreme islamist narrative. it is a problem.

it's not being invented. i think it would be wrong to say theyall over the country islamic leaders are doing a terrible job. they're not. we need to work out which programs of the radicalization of working best and lloyd out in all our prisons. -- which programs of the deradicalization are working best and put it in all our prisons. >> there are enough imams this is to challenge -- not the narrative of general islam. it leaves a real challenge. are we able to recruit imams who

are able to do that? >> my understanding is that yes we are. we are educating prisoners who are new or inexperienced in the moslem faith. purposes ofof the the extremism tax force. ministersll the around the table with all the responsibilities, each one of priorityheir highest extremismuse of the extreme task force we are driving some activity. >> [inaudible] passports removed

from the whole family. not just those involved directly, but also everyone else in the family, irrespective of whether they should have the passport. >> i don't know the details of this particular case. she is meticulous at looking very carefully at the advice she doingen and what she is to carry that out. her responsibilities to keep the country safe. the powersse appropriately. >> in this bill going to parliament, are you also satisfied that you have the cooperation of those countries -- say somebody refuses to abide by the conditions and then once to stay. are you satisfied that foreign governments will say that you can keep them in knots and them

back to britain? i'm hoping will get the agreement we need. what we trying to do here? we need to get police and security services the powers necessary to keep us safe. sometimes that is taking passports away. sometimes it is at the border. on occasion, it it would be right to say to someone who is thinking of returning to britain , where you can't come back until we are satisfied that we have the measures in place. that puts pressure on foreign governments, but foreign governments often put pressure on us. there are a quiet a lot of them in our prisons. -- they would be in danger in

pakistan. we are going to leave them in britain. would you be happy? >> are prisons are full of people -- our prisons are full of people. don'tso to reasons, they want to take them. i would stay tough on this one. i think it is important that we would be robust in keeping our country safe. >> -- political surge being the key to addressing the root causes of extremism. are you confident that over the last four months we have put adequate resources into the intelligence offices, the diplomats, the military liaison office? to achieve that? to understand that? >> i was asking this question at the national security council today. -- the the answer is

intelligence services are doing exactly this. this shiftingace threat pattern and establish where they are most needed. we've had a very big focus on afghanistan and pakistan. now they need to readjust. i was say there is some good work being done, but more needs to be done. liaison with the kurdish regional government has been important. we have a lot of military intelligence liaison going on. i have met with the prime minister of iraq and listen to his requests. is aeal solution in iraq government that represents all the country, military personnel

who will represent the country. all of this is about policy. i agree. whereuld ask ourselves, is our expertise to add to a predominantly american effort? we should not overstate what we are good at? we can make a difference. -- although it's too early to say all lessons can be learned, some things have emerged. in june, when my committee was in sierra leone and liberia, we were told that they did not think the problem was out of control. of course, it has. they felt it was not under control. be commended. they were pleading for help from the who and were told not to ask

to alarmist. you accept that? you accept that as a legacy we have to look at whether the who fits the purpose? is a real question here. why was the world not faster in responding to obama? because it's not airborne. it is passed by touch. if you get hold of it quickly, you should be able to snuff out the disease much quicker. need -- i argued at the g20 in prison than -- in phonene, we need an extra into the country when there is a problem. -- we need inexpert flown into the country when there is a problem.

there are regional organizations that are -- not the fastest moving. it's not functioning very well. -- i suspectwe can the right thing we should do is a cracked team. then there are a certain number of countries that step up to the plate, we are one. it is taking longer than i would like. the assessment did not get done fast enough. >> in syria leon we have responded. recognize that we were in the process of building health systems -- ensure that there is a legacy of a stronger health system. i know we do not recruit from

-- who would be much better deployed working in sierra leone. working with the nhs, we can help strengthen those systems to mutual benefit. one of the interesting things that came out is that nhs has huge capacity that is beneficial to both the nhs in the country concerned. >> there will come a moment when we should be planning for -- once we have this under control -- what are the legacy things that we should try to leave behind that will help sierra leone have a better health care system in the future? the tragedy of this case -- if you get an outbreak, you can act quickly. that is the real learning as well as his other stuff. great job ofa

training up a hundred 50 people of training aid hundred 50 people a week -- of 0 people a week. the risks here has been known for many years. i want to put that into context of the u.k. we allowed stories to run about entry checks, we most close down that is when in reality the battleground there are problems going to be addressed and lives saved. we change fundamentally the way in which government handles such advice in emergencies.

he has developed that system. don't you think they're lessons to be learned here about a system that did not kick in fast enough? we ended up as a reactive organization, when with the scientific knowledge we have, we should have been prepared in a much more alert to this developing risked. , we shouldestion look again at how we draw scientific information into the emergency team planning procedures so that we are proactive and not reactive. >> i will certainly do that. i may stand to be corrected, but -- i't think there was don't how to put this -- the -- everyone knew it was a problem.

they assumed that the who handle these things. they don't necessarily. were there teams of scientists saying quicker wake up you need to see work on a problem this is? you need this combination of political action and scientific advice. think that naïve to all we do is meet, listen to the scientists, and do it they say. advise about what works, what doesn't work, what is scientifically feasible. the politicians do have to make decisions. --'re not just dealing with sometimes problems of public deception, public panic. you need to understand the context in which are operating. work, in fukushima, ebola, or other scientific base

problems, we listen to advice, -- to follow where we can but i reserve the right for the politician to say i'm going to take it into account how the public will react, i we communicate this, how we explain this. the politician has a job. i'm certainly not criticizing , but the fact that the system does not proactively sucked in information from expert groups out there about risks around the world that have been known about for some time is a weakness of the system. issue is note sucking in the information. i think the issue was there was too long a delay between people seeing that ebola was taking off and sort of the big executive

action that was required, -- ise to get out there think obama was one of the first politicians to spot the scale of it, problem and address but when it happens, you cannot act too fast. a i wish you and your family very happy christmas. >> a very happy christmas to you. saved by the bell. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

yy > > s e n a t o r p a t r i c k l e a h y a n d c h r i s v a n h o l l e n o f m a r y l a n d w e r e o n t h e p l a n e t h a t c a r r i e d a l l e n g r o s s b a c k t o t h e u n i t e d s t a t e s f r o m c u b a . t h e y s p o k e a b o u t t h a t e x p e r i e n c e a n d t h e i r s u p p o r t f o r n o r m a l i z i n g r e l a t i o n s w i t h c u b a d u r i n g a c a p i t o l h i l l n e w s c o n f e r e n c e . h i s i s 1 5 m i n u t e s . >> good afternoon. we are here prumely to answer

your questions. but before we do, i would like the following. first, it is a positive thing that alan gross can be back with his family at a time when his health condition and such really required it. but also, in a longer sensible that mr. gross would agree with this, it marks a step forward in relationships between our great country and cuba. i have often thought that memos would go to the president of the united states saying hang ough on cuba and those castro's would be out any day now. that memo was sent to president

kennedy, johnen, nixon, ford, you see where i'm driving at the fact is they are there. the fact is cuba is still there. and we ought to face up to -- we will have differences. but that we can improve the lives of the cubans and improve he lives of u.s. citizens by stopping this idea of a closed door toward cuba where we tell american citizens you can visit any country in the world that will let you in except for cuba. except for cuba. now, that makes no sense whatsoever. there are a lot of things in areas of education, medicine, culture, art, that should unite us, not divide us. will we adopt their political system? of course not. nor do they have to adopt ours. but the reality is we are 90

miles apart. let's start finding ways to at least work through our differences and embrace our areas where we are alike. just about every business group would like that, every religious group would like that. the pope has spoken strongly on this. leaders of business in the united states have. and now it is time for us to, too. >> thank you. as senator leahy said, each of us have visited alan gross over the years. i was able to see him just a month ago in prison in havana. and at that time he said i hope that this ordeal, this five-year ordeal actually leads to something positive. and today when we got on the plane i told him when you look at what the president will announce here soon, you will see that it has resulted in

something very, very positive. and i just want to say that for those who say that this is a concession somehow to the cuban regime, these moves that are being made today, i think that that is the wrong way to look at it. that is simply wrong. the policy that we have had in place for the past 50 years has done more in my view in many's view to keep the castro regimes in power than anything we could have done. so i just am pleased that these actions have been taken. i think it will improve the lot of ordinary cubans. and it is for americans as well. some will say that the cuban regime may now limit the travel of americans now that we are more able to travel not freely but in larger numbers. they may take measures. and they may. but i've always said if somebody is going to limit my travel, it should be a

communist not my own government here. and it makes more sense for us to allow travel. that is what we do. that is what we do as americans. >> well, it was incredibly emotional moment as you might imagine when we walked off the tarmac into the building at the airport in havana and saw alan gross who i think realized for the first time that after five years of effort the moment had really arrived that he was going home. and as you've heard us say when we were gathered on the airplane and we crossed into u.s. air space, alan gave a big hoorah and put his hands up. judy gross his wife has been tireless for five years in trying to bring her husband alan home. i had the honor of knowing alan before he was taken prisoner and judy and a whole group of people had been working hard for many years to try to make

this day happen. but i want to emphasize what my colleagues have said. which is that alan gross is of course thrilled to be free. but alan gross having spent five years in a cuban prison also very much believes that the president's new policy of engagement will lead over time to greater freedom and opportunity for the people of cuba. ecause, as senators have said, when you try a policy for 54 years and it fails by the measure that you set out, which is to try to open and reform cuban society and the cuban government. when it's failed for 54 years it's time to say that policy has failed. let's try a different policy. and i do believe that more engagement, more communication, more travel, more trade will lead to more opportunities for the cuban people. and the people who should be most afraid of this opening are the people in cuba who are

worried about making cuba a little bit more free. the people who want to expand freedom and opportunity in cuba over time should be strongly in favor of this new policy of engagement. 54 years of failure as my colleagues have said the castro brothers have survived over eight presidents. clearly it didn't get us where we want to be. this is a new opportunity both in bringing alan home and also in trying a new policy of engagement with cuba. >> senator leahy may i ask senator graham has already said he is going to be your counterpart that he is going to seek to block funding for opening the embassy in cuba. what concerns you? >> we already have an inter section in cuba. so that -- the horse is out of the barn there. but the fact is i -- everybody is going to say how they're going to speak.

there are 535 members of congress, 435 in the house, 100 in the senate. everybody is going to make up their mind. but speaking as an american, i would hate to think as an erican on business, or visiting or whatever reason in another country, and something happens and i say, wait, i can always call my american embassy and seek help. oh, no. this is just about the only country where we don't have an american embassy. sorry, you're on your own. i don't think american businesses would like that. certainly those businesses we've talked with wouldn't like it. our academic leaders who go down there wouldn't like it. but just as individual americans wouldn't like it, it is beneath the united states of america. >> senator flake can you assess

the politics for the new republican majority in the senate how the politics that stand going forward proposed to lifting the embargo and allowing the embassy would proceed? >> we will see. i share senator leahy's view. i think that would be really counter productive to block funding for an embassy. we'll have a lot more americans traveling to cuba. last year it was about 40,000 or so. it's going to be a lot more under the new general licenses for most travel. to tell those meshes to travel there, sorry, you're out of luck if you have a problem if you're looking for a u.s. embassy. u just don't think that's right. and then in terms of the politics, we really haven't had kind of a test vote on cuba for a while. we used to regularly have otes, to litcht the travel ban

or -- lift the travel ban. but there have been a lot of new senators come in. so we will see. my sense is that most of my colleagues feel we are long past due. 50 years. and so i think that the politics are good. certainly the policy is right. and good politics usually follow. what's this -- this was coin side to congress leaving town? and why? >> this was decided a number of days ago when it was assumed that the senate would still be in session, the most senior member of the senate i consider the white house assumed it. things came together when they came together. they have been working on this for a very long time. senator flake and congressman and i have been down there different times. we've talked to the

administration officials. they have been working very hard on this. it came together now. i think that -- i'm glad it has come together for alan gross' -- i -- on the airplane coming back it was after the cheers here we are in u.s. air space, i said how does it feel? he threw his arms around me. we were both shaking. he said patrick i cannot tell you how good it feels. but then made it very clear let's not just stop with this. let's go forward. >> just for a minute here. back to this point about what might happen in the appropriations process. senator rubio said this is a very personal issue to him. but that it's going to be a new republican majority and even so do you -- the essential good that you see in terms of tourism and business and what not. couldn't they possibly impearl

that? and rubio is concerned about saying well they might start democratting down and doing other things daws i know how they are. do you feel that if the united states does not fund an embassy, an ambassador, that this all falls apart? >> i'm not even going to go into those kind of hypotheticals. the fact is the united states has relations with other countries, you have an embassy and you make sure that our best men and women can be there to show the face of america. and i guarantee you that just about every farm group, every business group, every academic oup and the music industry will say let's open up, let's make this work. i think if we took a poll in america today, we would find the vast majority of americans want us to be to be realistic

toward cuba. >> the president has normalized relations with cuba. the fact is that the person who is in charge of the intersection today now becomes the charge defair of the intersection. so his status immediately changes regardless of how long it may or may not take the senate to act on ambass dorl nominee. so the president has the executive can operate in the area of foreign affairs and he has as of today normalized relations. the appointment and nomination of ambassador is part of that. but normalization occurred today in the sense that the president has taken this step. >> it's off my radar in terms of a term when you say you have an intersection there. is that a building? an office? what is there? >> we have a large section of people. we have a number of people down there who work with americans

who are there. who help answer questions look out for american interests. we already have that. we have that for some time. >> why were you three sent? because, well, we had frequent flier mileage, you see. reiterated his country's willingness to maintain corporation and renew diplomatic relations six with the u.s. his remarks came after president obama made a historic move to her new norm relations with cuba and release alan gross, imprisoned for years. this 10-minute event is courtesy of cuba vision. >> my fellow countrymen. since my election as president of the council of ministers, i have reiterated on numerous