brexit issue for a large number of people in england. and turkey doesn't only and turkey not only represent a failure of the eu to deal with a serious threat, or a bully, or somebody that is prepared to do whatever they want to do to further their agenda, and the eu is incapable of doing anything on the southern borders by turkey. not only does it present that, but presents a serious imminence in the jump of immigration numbers and resources if turkey were to receive membership to the eu. so it is less said, then it should be, but it is something that informs a lot of people thinking as to why brexit possibly has to happen. because i count myself as

somebody who was -- my question is, your analysis said we should go back to a prior state but unfortunately, the three pillars don't address the problem of turkey. and turkey would be in the third one, and would be part of the solution, it is a beautiful country and it is working towards prosperity for its own population, by spreading them across the rest of europe. but revisiting those three pillars don't help with the fact that almost literally, the trojan horse is being rolled into europe. so i'm wondering, is that -- is that intentional on your part? or do you not see the turkish issue as being that big?

or is it because the united states doesn't have a good answer to that? ted bromund: there are larger questions there which we can't address about the nature of the u.s. policy towards the regime. i share all of your skepticism and maybe, even more, of the nature of the experiment in turkey, which i think is severely damaged, if not destroyed. one of the very few states in the middle east that was based on the model of the western state system. i'm not here to apologize for ataturk but he set up a state that offer the possibility of moving for the western model and that was a good thing. the reason i did notention turkey is i have no more desire

to see turkey acede from the european union than russia to the european union. this strikes me as something that is very far off, it should be very far off, and i have no desire to bring it closer in the near future. the erdogan government is repressive and intolerant in the extreme. i see no favorable political trends in turkey that would cause me to reassess that point of view. i see no genuine desire among the nations of europe and certainly not the peoples of europe for turkey to join the european union and for that matter, i'm not sure even the turks are all that enthusiastic at this point about joining the european union. what i know is that david cameron says he is very enthusiastic for turkey to join the european union.

if you really stretch, you can make the argument -- which the british prime ministers have made for a long time -- the more people we have in european union, the less effectively it will work and the more effectively we can muck it up by having a lot of people involved. i don't think that has been terribly effective and i have no desire whatsoever to try it with turkey which is far too large and significant a country to play a game with. so i don't think turkey is a fit member of the european union. maybe i am ill-suited to say that because i don't really like the european union much anyhow. [laughter] if i were a proud turk, why would i want to be ruled from brussels? it does not have any appeal to me at any level whatsoever. i can understand why it's an unattractive prospect for people in the u.k. or for that matter

in france, germany, italy, lots of other places. >> just a follow-up, turkey has roughly 80 million population. it turkey joins the european union, this is a massive development. i think that's another reason why the british should be keen to exit the eu. at the moment, angela merkel is operating with an appeasement policy toward the erdowan regime and bribing the turks to take back refugees. this deal is not going to last forever with turkey. i think europe is playing a dangerous game with the turks at the moment. if turkey does enter the european union eventually, that

would be a huge game changer within europe and you will see large-scale migration from turkey to points west in europe including the united kingdom. you also need to bear in mind that with the large refugee influx, the germans took in 1.2 million refugees last year. they took in 200,000 refugees in february-march alone this year. i would expect that more refugees will find their way -- migrants will find their way to germany eventually. within a number of years, the migrants or refugees will get german passports and that will give them the right to travel anywhere inside the european union including the united kingdom. then germany's problem becomes a british problem. you raise a good point about mass immigration and long-term consequences and these are big factors in shaping the debate in britain over brexit.

>> i just had an observation i think goes to your point about what has happened to the policy toward europe which is the day that our current resident made a decision to send back the winston churchill edict and he said which would be the first foreign leader he would call and it was erdogan. those two choices on january 20, 2009, really set the united states on a trajectory that has pursued a counterproductive policy. >> it's interesting how quickly things can change. when i worked for the conservative party a decade ago, before all this nonsense with erdogan, there was the thinking that because of the historical relationship between britain and

the turks and specifically the british conservative party and the turks and because voting in the council is based on population, getting turkey in the european union was away there could be an anglo-turkish axis of control and influence inside the institution. we know now this is a bunch of nonsense and erdogan is someone you cannot work with our trust. the gentle man in the front. this will probably be the last question. >> i'm an intern with family research council. with the turkey issue, if turkey is not allowed to be more influential in the eu or join, would they start straying toward the middle eastern side with opec nations and is that concerning? the other question is if the eu breaks away and britain breaks away from the eu and other countries would do the same, how

would that affect greece or even the eastern block like romania and hungary where they have weak economies? how would it affect them? >> let me say a few words on the first point. my concern is not that turkey will stray for the middle east. my concern is that the erdogan regime has already pushed turkey to stray toward the middle east if i can put it that way. erdogan's regime recommends a deliberate rejection of kamal attaturk's belief that they had to lie in turkey and the idea of a new ottoman empire was a dangerous delusion which had caused turkey in world war i and pre-world war i years lots of lives and lots of treasure, turkish lives and treasure. the answer to that was to have a

turkish state that was for turks, not a turkish middle eastern empire. the governing ideology erdogan regime was new ottomanism, the expansion of the old ottoman role. the european union did nothing to dissuade him from any of this. these are internal turkish developments which i think are highly undesirable but the european union is not in any form an answer to this question. this is a turkish issue. on the question of economics, greece has undergone economic contraction that is bigger than our great depression. it has done that because it is part of a currency zone. if you cannot the value your currency externally which is not a cure for lots of things but if you cannot devalue your currency externally, you must devalue your economy internally.

devaluing economy internally is a polite way of saying you need to have extremely high unemployment. getting out of the euro is not a sovereign cure for all of the economic problems of greece and other places. if you cannot recover your external financial freedom, you're going to devalue internally. that is the way it works. problem number one that these places have is they are in the euro. >> the problems greece is experiencing are greek problems. to say you will shackle the u.k. to solve those problems i think winds of, from an american perspective, counterproductive. then you're just undermining the u.k.'s ability to act as financial partner to the united states. out of self-interest, that does not help us.

from the greek perspective, being in the euro if that's fundamentally the problem, you will know will solve it if you make your prime directive to stay in the euro. >> one point on your second question about the economics of brexit on the rest of europe. undoubtedly, the greeks are better off outside the european single currency. the euro is a political project it's an artificial construct. you are beginning to see that construct crumbling. whether brexit takes place or not, you'll see the euro begin to crumble and eventually fall apart. at the moment, greece is being given orders from brussels and berlin.

it's not a sovereign nation. it barely runs its own government at the moment. that is an unsustainable situation. also, there is a limit to the generosity of the german taxpayers. the germans have benefited significantly from the euro but i think the idea of other european countries, patients ce will run out in germany as angela merkel faces a tough election next year. you are seeing the political landscape starting to change across europe and the great momentum toward sovereignty and self-determination across the european continent. i think countries like greece are far better off if they are unshackled from the euro.

i think greece is that are off outside of the european union as well. i believe that brexit will certainly encourage many other european countries to hold popular referenda. i think the european elite that have dominated the continent for many decades it will be taken by surprise when european populations actually vote on their future in the eu. even in germany, there is rising euro skepticism and the european project is being fundamentally challenged all over europe, not just in britain. that's a very good thing, i think. anything that advances the drive toward democracy and self-determination and taking powers away from centralized bureaucracies back into the

hands of the people, i think that is a positive result. >> great, for the british citizens in the audience, you still have a few days to make sure you register to vote in the referendum. every vote will count, that's for sure. hopefully, you learned something today. for everyone else, thank you for coming and join me in thanking our panelists. [applause] in 24 hours time or less, you can watch this and then if you're so inclined on heritage.org. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> madam secretary.

delegate2 of our votes to the next president of the united states. >> iraqi ambassadors to the u.s. talked about the future of u.s.- iraqi relations. letting isis and restoring functionality to cities. after his remarks, the ambassador took questions from the audience. this is about one hour. >> welcome.

ceo ofe president and the world heritage council washington dc. toare in institution devoted international education. it is an honor to host the last public appearance of the ambassador from iraq. i'm delighted to say that in your honor congressman jim moran is here. [applause] he is the vice-chairman of our board of directors. bill courtney is here.

tonight is an important night. i want to talk with you a little bit about how iraq became iraq. this is the hundredth anniversary of the treaty, a secret agreement between britain and france to carve up the domain of the ottoman empire. upon its defeat in world war 1. over the years much blame has been heaped upon the architects of that treaty. for drawing up the artificial borders of the middle east , particularly iraq. iraq is a close ally of the united states. 242,000 people have given their lives in that conflict.

military presence of 3500 americams remains alongside a gulf state coalition force. some u.s. senators called for that number to be tripled. signaling further military involvement that might disrupt the development of the economy. on the floor of the senate in 2007 it was proposed that iraq should be divided into three regions. each region is determined by the three major religions and ethnic groups.

many have been quoted saying peace amidst these dismal visions -- divisions was impossible. that stability was only held together by the dictatorship of saddam hussein. who was deposed in 2003. as the birthplace of civilization, iraq has a rich cultural history and diverse demography. out of a population of 37 million most of the population is arab. plus some kurds and 5% are turkmen or assyrian or other. iraq is a land links nation that borders other notable members of the region, iran, turkey syria jordan saudi arabia and kuwait.

in 2013, the ambassador arrived to assume the position of ambassador to the united states. he possesses a rich history of experience. as a representative in advocates for iraq and iraq has people. he actively opposed saddam hussein's dictatorship. active leader in the diaspora. supporting iraqis who had fled their homes. he continues to be a vocal and articulate advocate about his vision for iraq's future. he promotes the need for a multifaceted approach to development that not only focuses on physical

infrastructure or ian oil-based economy but on the balance of cultural and 21st century needs. as a young country with 65% of its population under the age of thethe ambassador vocalizes need for jobs and an economic environment that will allow for expanded trade opportunity , particularly for young entrepreneur. he also advocates for greater public engagement and communication by people not just politicians or diplomats. he is active on twitter. to directly engage with followers and expand the global conversation beyond what is conveyed through mass media. a champion not only for his people but education, cross-cultural awareness, and communication.

we are very pleased to have him at our independent neutral and nonpartisan world affairs council for tonight. during his tenure in washington the ambassador and his government have worked closely with the united states. iraq has successfully held elections with men and women going to the polls to elect the representatives of parliament in the face of threats and violence. there was a new unity government formed. in addition the ambassador to lead the charge with the u.s. sh.ernment to combat dae also during his tenure, the u.s. congress announced the final national defense authorization act for fiscal 2016 that they would continue to support iraq.

separately, the embassy oversaw the repatriation of more than 60 iraqi cultural trousers -- treasures that were looted and brought to the united states. on the personal front, the ambassador is the proud father of four boys. he has run several marathons. including the boston marathon in 2013. in solidarity against acts of terror. moderating today's discussion is dr. jessica eshoo, deputy director of the middle east strategy task force. she focuses on multilateral approaches to the growing challenges of state building and extremism. please join me in a very warm

welcome for the ambassador at the world affairs council. being broadcast live from the horizon ballroom of the ronald reagan building. thank you. [applause]

i should be able to fix this. [laughter] [applause] ambassador: good evening everybody. i am honored to be here at the world affairs council. i have the privilege of being here for the first time however i've also had the privilege of being close quite a significant amount of world affairs council events.

it is one of the key events i want to go to. i know that the diversity and the richness of this audience is unparalleled. they don't come in with the baggage of the history but come in and try to understand and find the truth. to that effect thank you for sharing your time with me today. my talk will be about the global challenge. where does iraq and the middle east fit from that perspective. and then the bilateral relationship. i am always anxious about such a question. to see how open can i be. this is my last event.

so i somewhat have the confidence that people cannot run up behind me and challenge what i've said. but as a point i took on by myself, on the first day i arrived in the u.s.. that is to be truthful open and look at our u.s. stakeholders as partners and look at them as a win-win situation. unfortunately, from 2003 until i came to washington it was clear for me that the dialogue was not deep enough. the truth of what was taking place. the iraqi project was not projected in the right manner. certainly, people were not aware what were the drivers. in iraq or washington to explain to my people back home.

sincerity, looking at it from a win-win perspective was one of the key drivers. tonight, i hope to stick to that formula. it proves to me that the o seek the truth. that they are sincere in supporting iraq. at the same time if people do not have the understanding of what is happening they will have misinformation. their decisions will not be rich enough. for me, that is an obligation i will hope to stick to. once you look at the global challenge one is amazed by the complexity of it. also amazed by the interdependency of that. managing complexity is one of the key challenges any world leader faces today. even any congressman or senators. to understand the depths and the ability of the united states to influence politics across the board.

whatever the u.s. influence can projected. managing the complexity is an issue. let me give you the elements of that. when you look at the global challenges, you can find refugees, human rights, nuclear weapons, terrorism and so on. when you look at the middle east as a region you find that the majority of global challenges to do fit the middle east phenomenon. nuclear, we have an issue. displaced people. terrorism. yber, less. we has a region have had issues that have had ramifications across the board. unless the region is fixed

, unfortunately global challenges will always be there. the geography the history and the richness of that region demography of that region. it will always be a point. managing complexity doesn't mean that you need to manage that aspect of it. you should not be thinking of containments or any other strategies or inaction as a strategy for example when you . look at the middle east itself you have additional challenges. that is for example threats across states. integrity of states. governance. demographic issues. inability of states to control social contracts between the citizens and the region. and their leaders. the arab spring can't really manifest that. in that context you have terrorism. touches on everything we talk

about. terrorism is not a unique phenomena. it is not a self-contained phenomenon. it goes across communities, challenges identities. links links the history that region with the positions they are seeking. here the u.s. position is crucial. when i look at that perspective i ask a question. where do we fit in iraq? if you look at the relationship of 25 years of u.s. engagement with iraq. let me look at the last 12 or 13 years. primarily since 2003. we went through three stages. 2003-2007, primarily a military

relationship and the occupation of iraq thereafter. 2011 to 2014 prior to the sh, then of dae relationship went through a low. -- lull. a quiet relationship. it wasn't clear what were the drivers. iraqis were not heavily engaged. since 2014 there is significant u.s. re-engagement. significant political engagements to complement the security engagement. why? because the challenge of isis is not domestic to iraq. it is a regional challenge. it is a manifestation of what we have in iraq and in the region. the global threat of terrorism

or isis is still there. clear and present danger. the challenge is to addressing it is still questionable. is the united states willing to identify the root causes of this or will contain that be their approach? it is not my problem, it is someone else's problem? not on my watch? these are the key challenges. the u.s. position itself if it wants to be a global power is in question here. does it want to have that role? with the cost and benefit associated with it? or does it think that it can contain the problem. the humblee you with experience it cannot be contained. they are deep.

they have been there. it is not the issue of a phenomena that can be addressed easily. root issues ofe their region. over the 20th century it is clear that that issue has not lived in harmony with itself in relation to the post-world war i formula, and certainly post-world war ii. that challenge in the region which is significant, what you might call an epicenter with relation to energy and ideology and religion and geography. to have an needs attention much more than it has given. the relationship is at a crossroads. doesn't want to invest or doesn't it? if it doesn't, what are the

ramifications? if it does, what does it take to do that? it is an important question. we see theng when elections and the discourses. we are worried. itself hassion in its own ramifications. because of the size of the u.s., the history of the united states in our region. on the other hand, the challenges we all face, whether it is the ability of countries to talk to each other, doesn't mean we need -- zero some formula means you need a big brother to bring some sense , to define some roadmaps and create a platform for dialogue. dialogue is significantly missing in our region. players still expect the others

to give up. certainhave expectations. that vacuum which is the result of what we've talked about over the last 12 years has meant instability is the formula coming forward. talks we control it and with each other. isis needs to be addressed to provide the region for breathing space to let the politics workout. without it, the region and will have the globe significant issues to worry about. not just terrorism. when you look at the perceptions of the u.s. in the region there are questions to be raised. doesn't want to engage or doesn't not?

is the dialogue taking place with the people of the region or only with the rulers of the region? does the u.s. and clarity of what it is seeking to achieve? as an ambassador who's been here for three years i can say with confidence i cannot say we had ve clarity what will take place after the next election. i know that isis as a threat will be there. that will create enough to talk about and discuss. what is the vision for this relationship moving forward? it is a key question. we in iraq do a lot of soul-searching. and what do we require from the united states. what are we willing to give up for the sake of what we gain? in the u.s., it is an issue for us. where do we want that relationship to be. what are the platforms, the agreements, the packs we have to

engage with each other to have a stable predictable relationship moving forward. that conditionality requires some soul-searching. it requires us to look into some of the root causes, not all. the positive. -- be positive. look forward to it. try to contain the damage isis has caused. some of those damages are irresistible -- irreversible. the damage to communities. it has been tremendous. that does mean significant engagement has to take place. to provide some kind of a roadmap for relations between the u.s. and the region . countries have questions and most of them have not been answered. we hope the next election here in the united states will

provide some light at the end of the tunnel. however, in my humble experience, i'm looking for that light. let me try to finish by taking a highlighting a few questions. i think the q&a will be more beneficial than me talking about it. looking ahead i think we need to focus on the short-term issues we need to work with. we need to align our priorities. our interests. commonalitiesny for us to be less focused on. those commonalities relate not security but development. let me give you an example. the fight we are doing day in and day out.

that means all communities now know that they need to work with each other. they all know they need to share the blood and sweat and the resources. so they can develop their country. at the same time, they do need significant help in technology and abilities. isis is conducting a new type of warfare. it is so vicious, we need to think beyond the normal convention. think outside the box. theink it is important that herelity of iraq is seeked in the states. because of the richness of resources. an unstable iraq will have a -- the epicenter of the region has been iraq. this is not coincidental. there are a lot of reasons behind this. we need to think about new agreements whether or not it is

sufficient or not i think it needs to be revised. i think we need to think beyond the current challenges. how do we see this relationship, three to five years? countries think we have common projects. thank you again. [applause] jessica: thank you ambassador. it is an honor to have you here -- host you for your last public appearance. i would like to start with the questions that is on everyone's mind. you mentioned the liberation of falluja, the battle that is currently under way right now. this is an operation that has a lot of emotional resonance for americans because of the high

number of americans who were killed in the battle of falluja. the two battles of falluja in 2004. there are american advisers currently advising the operation that is underway right now. i want to ask, what is the role of non-iraqi forces in this battle? it has been controversial and well publicized that there are shia militias in these operations. i want to ask, what is their role and where is the chain of command? ambassador: thank you for the question. the chain of command lies with the prime minister, the commander-in-chief. world harms, the do report to him. to that extent, we are yet to find one example across the last

years fighting with isis when they have not adhere to their commander in chief. the formula is clear. we also have the complexity the of so many stakeholders. in ramadi it was easier than falluja. you wanted the tribes, more localities and coalition forces and air support. iraqi forces. them, i'm trying words. the english the mobilization forces are tribal. sometimes they call them the militia. christians, although collection of iraqis who are part of that.

who havepeople allegiance to iran. no one is doubting that. i don't think that's an issue here. the liberation is in iraq by alwayson't have to question the ideological motive for the fighter if he is fighting for the liberation of this country. you in the united states had to cooperate with the soviet union and others have during world war ii because of the strategic it interest and the threat. here we have a much vicious enemy who does not even have a believe in physical existence. let alone your allegiance. the complexity of falluja can be seen because of the close proximity to iraq. baghdad. it's legacy.

it'salso remind the audience that falluja was taken by isis prior to december 2014. it was december 2013. which men that that area the had more hardened locals. that has been one of the reasons for the anxiety of the coalition. jessica: you mentioned the importance of addressing the root causes. when we talk about falluja it seems that the battle in the liberation is actually only step one. there will have to be very intensive process of reconciliation. to bring neighbors back together and restore some elements of coexistence and make a functional city again. can you, on plans for such reconciliation? ambassador: we have had some

examples of case studies. we had it before in tikrit and ramadi and other places. to that effect, we have a model we try to improve it moving forward. that model means we need collaboration among the tribes. thecertainly don't need army. you need local police to keep control to hold and control the land thereafter. you need something from the central government. for post-liberation stabilization, you need significant contribution from local government and others. that is where we have been lacking support internationally. the post-liberation areas, whether it was tikrit or others. the other model is to accelerate

the return to their homes. one of the challenges we faced before we talked about tikrit. only a sunni city. that was an intertribal issue. that is one of the other complexities. issues over revenge is more of a cultural issue. here it is important for us to make sure that any liberation with intertribal issues not being exploited. isis has the ideology of depending on sectarianism as a method of control. and projecting fear. that has been another challenge for us. in a way, it is not a natural trench war. it is areas where you already have populations. these are iraqi citizens.

as a state, we have the responsibility for them. liberation is very important. the prime minister has tried to delegate but i can assure you what we are doing is a new form of managing wars. isis's method of warfare is new. jessica: one last question before we moved to audience questions. our host mentioned that this is the 100th anniversary of the agreement. many people look at the iraqi borders as part of the problem. they point to partitions along sectarian lines as a possible solution. i would like to know your opinion of the feasibility of that as a solution. ambassador: the state is an organic entity. thatngle state can say --

is where you start from. on the other hand, you do have an issue of where if the new borders are based on ethnic and sectarian lines then why should it be confined to the current borders of iraq? new iraq ishat the sunni arab, shiite and kurdish. but say for argument sake, you can bring a surgeon and he can cut up the country. where are the borders where you you don't have a historical narrative. you have the issue of a new narrative being promoted with is called sectarianism or other aspects of it. why would it be confined to iraq?

there's no reason behind it. in fact, you are destabilizing the region as well. making sure that iraq cannot function together. let's say we had issues of governance in the south. basra for example. we have issues, for argument's sake. that is nothing to do with secretary is him -- sectarianism. that has to do with the governance. ence to govern understand what democracy is about. the whole idea of the post-2003 reforms. you might seek a simple solution but in the fact the effect of that simple solution will be too hard. the societies are not ready for any type of division. the history is not associated with it. i'm not saying decentralization should not be the theme.

in fact, we do. fact, the dictatorship of saddam hussein has taught us we never want a central, strong baghdad. that is no longer the vision. a functional center that can provide a win-win situation. that is the work in progress. it is not easy. we certainly not in a democratic region. to that effect, i feel iraqis feel frustrated they haven't received the support of their arab neighbors that they were seeking before. jessica: thank you. we will move to audience questions now. we have a microphone set up. behind theue up microphone and ask your question. please keep your questions short, two sentences. please ensure the second sentence ends in a question mark.

>> would you like to move to the microphone? >> you suggested that if we divided the country, why stop at the borders? you got issues with turkey and saudi arabia and iran. thed you mind addressing roles those nations have played? ambassador: i am still ambassador.

the question i can answer clearly, the situation we have of saddamacy occupying and causing friction if not havoc to his neighbors. whether it was iran or syria or kuwait, destabilizing the situations. even with jordan. let's not forget the kuwait invasion. to that effect, countries in the region were not comfortable with the new iraq without understanding what it takes. they understood the region is not democratic which means self-government is not a natural characteristic of the society. and with the u.s. engagement which didn't get the by and of the region. in of the region. in an ironic way, it was was the

first country to recognize iraq in post-2003. even though they were not supportive. the complexityat and drivers are different. another issue is since 2003, the u.s. has significantly reduced its footprint in the region, politically and so on. which meant the regional players do seek to fill the vacuum. that is another challenge we have had. on the other hand, we do need support from the neighbo. we certainly need recognition that they cannot be go back to preset on, pre-2003 to the pre-saddam,

pre-2003 situation. some arab countries are nostalgic about saddam hussein. they are nostalgic for the strongman. the americans didn't teach us what democracy is about. we had to learn harsh way. unfortunately a lot of homework was not done. which meant we had to pay the penalty. to that effect, the regional players should play a role. they have an opportunity. iraqis are in one way forgiving. opportunity for defining our common interests. at the same time iraqis are stubborn people. as you and the united states have found out. we are not easy to deal with we don't trust our neighbors. some elements of trust are crucial. mr. investor.

thank you so much for doing this. congratulations. bearing in mind everything you just said, is it possible for the government for the erdogan government to be a constructive partner in the campaign to retake mosul and make it part of the country that is attached to the government at baghdad. is that possible? pine on that? ambassador: i don't know if it is wisdom or not. let me say turkey and other regional players are where we had issues in relation to the fight against isis. we certainly were expecting much more from turkey to provide us in the common threats we all face. isis is not a pure iraqi domestic problem. is a transnational entity that has had effect elsewhere.

it's natural presence is in sunni countries. immunization from sunni communities needs to increase to fight this virus. iraqis have paid a high price. we have high expectations of turkey to stand up to that challenge of being a constructive player looking at the bigger picture and not looking at it through any other prism. it is an international threat to them. we are not saying they're not domestic issues that you should not focus on. we in iraq have tried to be a stable player. ae government has tried to be player in relation to turkey. to that effect, we would be more than happy to work with turkey. isis is the number one threat to the region.

it is an immediate and clear danger to the region. turkey needs to stand up to that challenge. if they view that this is a transaction of a strategic view, unfortunately we will all lose out. what is taking place in syria and others is the result of regional players, global players, international players not allowing their -- acceptable for refugees. that is a natural disaster that will project itself into europe and elsewhere. what is taking place in syria should not be acceptable to any stakeholder let alone to turkey. >> you are still the ambassador so i understand you have certain limitations on what you can say. i would like to take the big picture, the historical picture.

do you think, to bring questions. first, would the people of iraq have been better off if we never went in there in 2003? second question would the people , of iraq have been better off if the obama administration had followed through to be more helpful to iraq? ambassador: can i answer number one only? [laughter] >> answer number two in a month when you are no longer here. ambassador: iraqis now have the will to think. how long will it take for the country to stabilize and to

prosper? that is in our hands to a certain extent. damage, but itn is in our hands, how much we want to promote social harmony. iraqis realize that whatever support we received from the united states before, let's call it unconditional support. now, it is conditional. we have learned the harsh way that we need to be a better judge of character in one way and to understand what it takes to stabilize, which is in our hands. and at the same time, the burden and the legacy of saddam hussein should never be underestimated. from around 1975 onward, saddam took us through wars, which mean

t we had a whole generation brought up in a culture of violence. we have an opportunity that we never had before 2003. we certainly questioned the u.s.'s homework in 2003. i don't think anybody can say confidently that they did all they could and they did their homework. but that is an issue for us to work with each other. that is an opportunity for us to utilize whatever we have done together, the blood, the sweat, the resources, the legacy, and so on. i don't think it is beneficial for the u.s. to say, we should never endangered with another country. it is not beneficial or feasible. on the other hand, it is also useful to be able to have a full understanding of what it takes

to engage with other countries. let alone a complicated country such as iraq. from 2008 onward i think it was an understanding, i think it's wrong, that the region should manage itself. that iraq is a burden. yes, but on the other hand, i have been here for three years and i have talked to a lot of people in the military. noene of those who worked in not fatigued. they understand the victimization of our society. we now need to have the courage to get out of this victimization cycle and that requires a lot of courage. we need to get out of that mindset. that requires a lot of effort. we are continuing with the fight against isis. >> thank you, mr. ambassador for

coming and recognizing, as has been stated, that you are still in a role here. being a former reporter myself, i will ask the last question in a little bit of a more pointed way. political debate taking place in this country over the last 15 years has basically said, was this a mistake? more specifically, it has been stated in the political debate, has the u.s. made a mistake in going in there? therefore, did our actions lead to the quagmire in iraq, to the military involvement, and to the rise of isis, etc. ? without trying to put you too much on the spot, i don't want , butvisit the whole debate can you address your thoughts, but also point it toward what

type of military involvement might the u.s. need to take in the future? ambassador: we certainly need to look at our military agreements, the military pact between the two countries and the region as well. we need to find one that is sustainable. when i talked about the situation next year, i really don't know. i don't know what the new president's policies will be. how will they see the legacy aspect of it? however, i know that the threat in the prior to 2003 global region has nothing to do with the iraqi invasion or liberation. 9/11 took place well before that. what took place in afghanistan was well before that. so i think there is an oversimplification.

as i said before, managing complexity is one of the key difficulties we all face. there is no single solution for it. let me give you an example. even if we have resolved all the problems we have, without addressing significantly the demographics, the world economy cannot stabilize. we do need to be better at familyy planning, planning, and all other nonpolitical element as well. so, if you are looking at the situation from 2003 and asking, was it a mistake, it is not for a historian to judge. however, the a-list in that region needs to be addressed. they are much more than the 2003 phenomenon. certainly, there are always consequences.

that much, hence my point about the homework needing to be done. it could have been much more focused and effective in addressing the situation in iraq, resulting in fewer counsel casualties across the board. it is not beneficial for us in iraq that the united states feels the investment does not have any reward. united states has significant power. whether wants to use it or not it has significant political and economic and cultural power. we do need a healthy u.s. engaged in the region. what we see here, what i see here in the election debate and everything else, is a country in

transition without clarity of how long that transition will take. effect, we do need a focused u.s. sake, for everybody's sake. >> next question. >> ambassador, there has been talk of a safe haven being placed in iraq using kurdistan as a model. do you support this idea? ambassador: i have had this discussion. my input has been, we need to look at the big picture. some irreversible damage has taken place. people have to recognize that. whether that has to do with heritage fights, some people who ready.raq al so, to that effect

unfortunately, that is an identity issue we need to focus on. for our own identity. the other aspect of it is not feasible because none of the promises of iraq can be pure 100% of any ethnicity. the most southern part of iraq is where there is the christian religion. there is no need for us to reengineer the society demographically. we have coexisted with each other way before dictatorship, way before saddam hussein, way before a lot of other nations existed. that means we can do this again. majorr, we have had a opportunity that we have missed,

that we did not grasp. ,o that effect, including 2003 for us, it is a major loss for iraqis not to grasp the support we had from the united states. we cannot do it alone. so, the community solution is one solution which people are trying to experiment with. however, i see it only as an experiment. i don't think it will be what you could call a lasting solution because the reason for the divisions i spoke about they are all kurdish entities, by the way. these are pure kurdish to kurdish parties and any to

get their act together for the sake of stability in iraq. miradells me we face a -- not a mirad, but multiple issues we need to address. we require a substantial amount of focus for a generation or two to come. we cannot build this country in iraq without people thinking about their children and their grandchildren. ,f they think about themselves then unfortunately, the problem will continue. that is one of the key challenges we as iraqis need to address. >> sir? regarding be curious the idea of building an oil dividend, where the revenue is given directly to the iraqi people, bypassing the state bureaucracy.

this would be along the lines of the alaskan model, or in norwayl. puresador: this will be my open you nothing to do with the government. those who talk about that do not fully appreciate the complexity of the governance required to build a country. i'll give you an example. we face majorly the need for large infrastructure projects. energy, growth, issues that go beyond a promise. how do you manage that? we certainly need major developments in education and health care. these are all issues which require that stand show entrepreneurship. we need to understand what it takes to undertake these issues. industry produces 95% --

the oil industry produces 95% of the revenue, with 1% for the workforce. to train this into the development of the country. that cannot take place by spending cash we cannot afford. we have been doing it, by the way. our challengers will say we have been paying salaries with only the cycle of money going once. salaries can't be purchased and so on. people traveling and so on. to that effect, the infrastructure is not there. banking, insurance, whatever else you need so that people put their money aside and they recycle the funds and resources you need. small sized enterprises are not there. so, to that effect, i think it

but nice, noble idea, the timing is substantially wrong. i will challenge anybody with such an idea to tell me how they want to build a country. how do they want to build large infrastructure projects? unless he goes into total privatization of the country. and even for that, you need major infrastructure. >> good evening, ambassador. thank you for being here with us. based on your experiences here and your time in the u.s., and based on current events happening in iraq, the u.s., and and around the world, what would be your advice to the next abbasid are? ambassador: don't come over

here. [laughter] >> we are not that bad. yourself.: clone you need to be a lower the united states. when i came here, i had never been to the united states. my first trip was as an investor. i was amazed by the generosity of the people, their ability to support you. but to do that, you need to have integrity. you need to be consistent and understand what it takes and also, look at the situation from a number of issues, not just as some of my colleagues have tried to do. when i go back home, they say focus on the victimization of the society. that is not enough. people have interests within a society.

strategic, financial, cultural, whatever. you need to your homework substantially. it is a very large country. that means you have to travel a lot just to get a glimpse of what this continent is all about. you need to have a high-caliber partner, as i have had, who can accommodate such a lifestyle, in which you have to travel all the time and so on. so to that effect, it is not easy. no u.s. ambassador would want to be the u.s. ambassador in washington. [laughter] ambassador: because seriously, what it takes is you need to have a lot of energy, drive, focus, and so on to be successful. one final point, which i think is useful. heever comes over here, needs to have a specific objective. can't be broad issues.

they need very few specific issues. and for me, the key specific issue is for the relationship to become predictable, where we know where we stand, what are the issues, and we can adressdrs it. it does not have to be that people don't know where he is standing. i think it is important that they know where you and your country stands. >> thank you. , thank you for your time and expertise. jessica, i appreciate you joining us. please join me in thanking our speakers. [applause]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 201] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> in early may, the food and drug administration issued a rule that gives it regulatory rule over e-cigarettes. this is live at 10 a clock a.m. eastern.

-- this is live at 10:00 a.m. eastern. this afternoon, the president delivers the commencement address at the u.s. air force academy in colorado springs, colorado. government officials brief the senate subcommittee over efforts to combat drug trafficking and heroin abuse in the u.s. this is about one hour and 45 minutes. drug cartels operate out of countries and the western hemisphere and they do so by using sophisticated distribution systems that move narcotics into and across the net estate. heorin supplied by these cartels has traded a public health epidemic and fueled drug violence across this country. this is unfortunately becoming part of everyday events in our society. it is our duty to buy the best possible avenues and allocate resources to provide the best tools to equip those on the front lines to fight this public health crisis.

we need to examine what the united states, mexico, and other regional partners are doing to cooperatively address the rise in heroin and drug trafficking, promoting the efficacy to stop the spread of heroin and combat the drug cartels. that should be one of the top priorities. one of the primary culprits in this fight is called sentinel. it is a synthetic opiate that is 25 to 40 times more potent than heroin and it can be used to treat pain associated with cancer. the cdc states that most cases are associated with non-pharmaceutical fentanyl. it is used as a substitute for heroin, or sometimes mixed without the knowledge of the user. reported thatea mexico and china have been cited as the primary source country, inugh some are manufactured

china. these supplies are found in the united states, across the southwest border, or delivered through the marriotail carrier. much of the illegally diverted and produced fentanyl is found in the stimulus markets where white powder heroin is found. the estimated number of individuals who used heroin was 914,000 people in 2014. in addition, there are about 586,000 individuals, or basically, .2% of the 12 and older population with a heroin disorder in 2014. there has been an increase in heroin related deaths. to this day, the administration's efforts -- despite the administration's efforts heroin related deaths

have increased by 244% between 2007 and 2014. the u.s. has launched the heroin response strategy. partner,ur regional has displayed willingness to cooperate with u.s. authorities. despite this, the international narcotics report estimates that 2% of cocaine is seized by country authorities. congress has provided funds to the mexican government to improve security. i applaud the continued efforts of a mexican government to continue the drug eradication efforts. however, we are still far from the finish line. i think congress can continue to work in constructive ways to promote legislation addressing opiate abuse. i am proud to be the cosponsor of a bipartisan bill that was overwhelmingly passed in the senate.

i also applaud the house for working to address this issue and i hope then we will able be sento send this to the president's desk. i hope we can shed light on the consequences that this epidemic will have on our society if left unaddressed. i am optimistic that this hearing will serve as an opportunity to learn about the administration's priorities eroinmbating the hai epidemic. i now turn it over to our ranking member, senator boxer. >> thank you so much for holding this hearing. i would like to put into the record senator's opening statement. the abuse of legal and illegal drugs in america is an absolute crisis and to fight it we need to act on many fronts. take the case of opioids. these are legal prescription drugs killing approximately 125

people every single day here at home. 2014,c says that in 47,000 people died from opiate abuse. just imagine that. we need to do much more than we have done so far to put real dollars behind the efforts to stop this. then, there is the issue we will focus on today, illegal drugs been transported into this country. recently i visited costa rica and i learned that this peaceful country is very alarmed about drug cartels infiltrating their population. we must help them stop this real threat and i hope to ask a question about that. and while we are working cooperatively with the mexican government, specifically with an initiative, and raleigh have seized more than $4 billion in narcotics and illicit, currenc , let's face it. that is a drop in the bucket.

we have to address the demand in the united states for these lead the products. i know that is not your job and i will not ask you about that, king at i'm maskin statement. we have to address the demand of these products. supply and demand go hand in hand. it is like economics 101. a long time ago i was an economics major. when people demand a product, we know what happens. the supply will come. and when even more people demand a product, the price will go up and it goes around in a circle. years ago, too many to even mention. i don't even know where my chairman was about time, it was so long ago. when i first came to congress, i wrote a bill called "treatment on demand" because what i found

out mr. chairman, when there is a person in america with a terrible addiction at that time -- and it is still true today -- they wake up one day and they say "i've done it and i need a new life." they can't get in anywhere and people say, come back in two weeks. this is an emergency circumstance in many ways, but it is not consider that. so, they will go in and maybe get a pat on the back and come back in two weeks. and by then, maybe they have even overdosed. i know with working with colombia and guatemala, developing alternatives to opioid production. we need to be more aggressive in our policies regarding drug production, trafficking, and here at home, consumption. ofcalifornia, we have four those areas my chairman spoke about that are designated as high intensity drug trafficking areas by the obama

administration. i'm extremely grateful to the administration. we had the help under george bush as well. when you identify an area it means you are going to get some attention, some federal dollars,s ome federal health. a lot of these local people, our police forces and so on, really do need that help. so, i'm grateful for that. we have also discovered tunnels from mexico to san diego, which act as conduits for thousands of pounds of cocaine. at this point, we continue to face challenges in dealing with these dangerous cartels. they are really good at what they do and they intimidate everyone. that is why this fight is so critical. we need even stronger partnerships with mexico and other countries in the region. i want to say this. alienating our latin american neighbors and our latinos here at home is the worst possible thing we can do. first of all, on a human level

because in my view, it is prejudice and bigotry. but it does not make sense. if we are really trying to crack down on his cartels, we need our friends to work with us. we don't need to escalate some kind of ridiculous debate about walls and all the rest. i do want to thank our witnesses for being here today. there is a lot of burden on you. this is very difficult. the war on drugs has not been a success because we have not done enough on the demand side, or on any side. we need to do much better and i want to thank my chairman because i think this is really well-timed, given what we are facing with of the opioid crisis. >> thank you, senator boxer. i do want to recognize a senior senator from new jersey who has done an extreme amount of work on western hemisphere issues, but also on issues regarding

transnational crime. please join me in welcoming our first witness. thank you for your testimony today. >> chairman rubio, senator boxer, senator menendez, senator gardner, thank you for this opportunity to discuss the work of the state department's bureau of international affairs -- i will be ok. the bureau of international narcotics and law enforcement affairs to combat production and trafficking of heroin, particularly by mexican-based drug trafficking organizations that are responsible for the vast majority of heroin on american streets today. in the united states, we face an epidemic of opioid abuse. well over half of the 47,000 drugsan deaths from last year more for domestically produced pain relievers or

heroin, which is often combined with other deadly drugs, such as fentanyl. in mexico, drug trafficking organizations have killed tens of thousands of citizens and these organizations continue to create violence, instability, corruption, and addiction. broader than the united states and we will not solve it alone. the overwhelming majority of the heroin in the u.s. is produced by mexican drug trafficking organizations. they have been trafficking not only heroin, but cocaine, methamphetamine, and other illicit drugs that enter our country. most of these and or through our border with mexico. the united states and mexico developed the initiative in 2007 with major focus on combating the production and trafficking of illicit drugs across the borders. today, the obama administration remains committed to the

strategic goals. our partnership, which brings together significant investments and capabilities from both countries, continues to help build mexico's capacity to fight nakata trafficking, organized crime, and violence. together, we are aggressively responding to this threat by putting the leaders of drug trafficking organizations in jail, by seizing their drugs and money, and by dismantling their organizations. professional i thing and building the capacity of mexican law enforcement agencies, supporting the mexican government's efforts to strengthen border management and ngcurity, and helminpi advanced reform across mexico's justice sector. we have agreed that targeting the production and trafficking of heroin and fentanyl is a top shared priority. dea areend, inl and

providing training to law enforcement officers, and analysts to increase mexico's ability to identify, investigate, and dismantle heroin and fentanyl labs. we are improving information sharing between our governments, working together to get better assessments on opium poppy cultivation and heroin and fentanyl production in mexico. building strong, effective mexican justice sector institutions capable of confronting organized criminal enterprises is a difficult, long-term challenge. , forwork must be sustained it is only through a committed and coordinated effort that sustainable capacity to deter of heroin andtion

fentanyl will be stopped. with your continued support, this successful collaboration with mexico will continue. thank you. >> thank you. begin chester., please your testimony. >> chairman rubio, ranking member boxer and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me here this morning to discuss the public health and public safety issues resulting from heroin use. and the u.s. and mexico cooperation to discuss issues in both countries. year14, the most current for which we have data, more than 47,000 americans, or approximately 129 people each day, died from a drug overdose. the threat posed 22% involved heroin. the threat posed by heroin

has continued to grow over the past couple years. 10,574have risen 340% to deaths in 2014. it is spreading to suburban and rural communities. mexico is currently the primary supplier of heroin to the united states with mexican drug traffickers cultivating opium and a producing heroin, smuggling the finished product into the united states. poppy cultivation and mexico has increased substantially, rising from 17,000 hectors in 2014 to 28,000 hectors in 2015, which could yield production of 70 metric tons of pure heroin. the crisis is being compounded by the reemergence of fentanyl,

a powerful synthetic opioid more powerful than heroin. it is sometimes mixed with powder heroin to increase its effects. increasingly, fentanyl is being pressed into pill form and being sold as counterfeit prescription pills. the majority of the illicit fentanyl in the united states is when dustin lee produced in mexico or china. 2014, they were more than 5544 drug overdose deaths involving synthetic marcotte x other than methadone, a category that includes fentanyl. this number has more than doubled from two years earlier. -mexico engagement has been robust. we participated in a bilateral security dialogue, where the importance of increased poppy eradication efforts, as well as drug interdiction, and the

disruption of precursor chemical trafficking were all highlighted. ambassador,ch, the the secretary of state for international marcotte x and law enforcement affairs -- for international lal narcotic into law enforcement affairs and i discussed the efforts to disrupt the introduction of heroin and fentanyl. we have agreed to develop a plan to concentrate mexico's efforts against heroin fentanyl. the urgent need to sustain progress requires increased collaboration between federal agencies, and with our partners looking at the state, local, and tribal levels. in november 2015, the team that i lead, the national heroin coordination group, was created within the office of drug

control policy. these partners will leverage their home agency authorities into a harmonized inter-agency activity against the heroin and fentanyl supply chains to the united states. this funded high intensity drug trafficking areas. the locally-based program that response to drug trafficking issues facing specific areas of the country has also been instrumental. in august of 2015, they committed $2.5 million to develop a heroin response strategy. this innovative project combines prevention, education, intelligence, and enforcement of resources to address the heroin statesthrough 17 and the district of columbia. we have addressed the heroin crisis, but much remains to be e accomplished. we lack control over the gaps

in the border. remarks have focused on addressing the supply side of the opioid crisis, we must address opioid use disorders with a balanced approach but also regards addiction as a public health matter using substance abuse prevention and treatment strategies and recovery support services. ondcp will continue to work with our international partners and our partners at the state, local home and tribal levels to trafficking, and the dangerous affect these drugs are having in our communities. thank you for the opportunity to

testify today and i will be happy to answer your questions. >> thank you. i am going to defer my questions . i will be here throughout the duration. i turn us over to the ranking member for her questions. >> i just have two questions. 2008, mexico's congress passed a series of significant reforms to the criminal procedures, new laws to promote greater access to justice and a strengthened measures to combat organized crime, measures that would make the mexican justice system look a little bit more like our own. they were intended to be of limited by 2016. where does the implementation of these judicial reforms stand? and how has the united states assisted in this process? the --you feel about whether they are really doing what they committed to do? >> thank you, senator.

mexico committed and passed legislation to implement a new criminal justice system, which is an accusatory a justice system, much like ourselves. point of the 32 mexican states, 24 have them cemented crimesth federal level and i believe nine have implemented it at the state level crimes. obviously, this is a long-term process and some of the states in mexico will not meet the deadline for next month. we remain committed and continue to work closely with them on a number of issues. thanks to the gracias appropriations of congress, we have dedicated approximately $250 million to these efforts between the department of state and u.s. aid, through issues

such as training judges, prosecutors, courtroom personnel, law students. over 4000 have been trained through the department of justice's prosecutorial training program. we also have a number of law school and institutional exchange programs. and a number of universities here in the united states. we are preparing law enforcement for their new roles in the accusatory a justice sector. for instance, the department of justice partners have trained thousands of law enforcement in crime scene investigations, provided equipment for units and forensics, fingerprinting, and so thatllections there mexico can comply with international standards. >> what i am getting from you is that there is progress being made. although, not everybody will meet the deadline.

it is optimistic in a report. that leaves me to my final question, which i alluded to in my statement. as we continue to work with the mexican government, and that is critical. we have to work here at home to reduce the demand. we have to work across the border to reduce the supply. that is where the rubber meets the road in both of these areas, that we need to work with mexico. i am concerned about the rhetoric in the presidential campaign describing our relationship with mexico. it is a tough question for you. i just want you to say what you feel in your heart because we need to know. mexican officials have said on record that some of the proposal mentioned on the campaign trail -- we know who we are talking about here -- a candidate who is talking about having mexico build a wall, insulting mexican-americans here at home. that some of the proposals would

have a cataclysmic effect on our bilateral relations. has this rhetoric affected diplomatic relations with mexico at this point? has impacted the united states' ability to work with the mexican government to combat drug trafficking? and are you concerned that that type of rhetoric could just completely undermined what we are trying to do here? >> just with the record, she is not talking about me. [laughter] >> i'm so not talking about you. >> excellent. i will try to strike a balance between answering your question and not answering too deeply into our own domestic politics here. >> inode is a tough one, but you know what? when people talk to has real-life impacts. especially a presumptive nominee. >> you have all seen some of the reactions from south of the border, from our mexican

brothers and sisters. thehave seen reactions from embassy bilateral level t. to date, we continue to work closely together. in my personal opinion, i do not believe it has gravely affected our ability to do business together. mexico, in the last several months, has reiterated its commitment to continuing with the initiative where the populace of mexico stands on this may be another matter. that we continue to be able to work closely bilaterally. anso, the words have not had impact on what is going on at the very top level, in your opinion, on the work that you were doing at this point? >> not in their dealings with us. >> that is excellent. now we have to make sure that those policies never come into effect. thank you. >> senator menendez.

>> thank you, mr. chairman for calling this hearing. agencies, how many are involved in the efforts with respect to mexico's border with us to meet our efforts to stop interdiction, stop flows, using intelligence. how many agencies are involved? > >> u.s. agencies, i hope that is what you are talking about. >> yes. >> you have the department of state, the department of home and security, the fbi, immigrations and customs enforcement, homeland security investigations, our military supports some of the border effort, mexico's military, and then we have some ancillary agencies, which are based in

mexico city. note their chief focus is the border, they do peripherally work, such as the atf and the u.s. marshals. >> if you had to guess how much money has been spent on interdiction and eradication efforts in mexico since the start of the epidemic we are experiencing, what would you put that at? >> my understanding is, $2.5 billion has been appropriated, of which approximately $1.5 billion has been obligated or committed to specific projects, of which we still have at this point about new initiatives for about $700 million. >> are you speaking about the initiative specifically? >> largely. >> there is money spent far beyond this. >> there certainly is, senator. i am not in a position to comment on the department of

justice's figures. >> i wasn't just looking at appropriations. i look at all the agencies you mentioned. the department of justice, the dea, fbi, immigration, military, alcohol, tobacco, and firearms. and i think to myself, it has to be billions collectively. i was one of the architects of the initiative, which i support. billionsbillion later, between all of our respective agencies and what we have is an opioid epidemic. and so as a policy maker, one has to take a step back and say to themselves, "what's not wor king?" because something is not working, i billionsf of dollars later, you see a spike, versus a trend in the other direction, then

something is not working. if i were to say to you, what is not working and what do we need to change, your answer would be? >> first of all, senator, i think in the past few years, we have come to the realization that this is a shared responsibility. e'sm heartened by the senat recent passing of the opioid legislation. that is something that is going to help us. certainly, mexico specifically. their capacity as far greater than it was in 2007. information sharing and collaboration has led our own u.s. law enforcement to agencies interdict on the border significantly more. i think we do need to get better in the united states and demand reduction and treating the h

ealth issues of addictic ted people. it is no longer just a supply-side issue. >> as a listen to your response, it is everything we are doing, except for more significant effort on demand reduction. it is not suggesting there is anything that we are not doing. and al li c -- and all it can lk at and say, if you are spending billions and instead of the trend going the opera direction, it is rising. you have to ask the question, what is it we are either doing wrong, or what is it that we are not doing that we need to do. otherwise, you can appropriate billions and billions, but still find ourselves in a trend that is undesirable. the only thing i heard from you in your response to me was doing more in demand reduction, which

i certainly believe is true. that i did not hear about anything else. so, you have to question whether or not the continuation of this type of expenditure in this manner is the right policy. let me ask you this. do you believe there is sufficient coordination, a seamless coordination between -- at least on our side of the border as a relates to all of the agencies engaged in his fight? >> senator, obviously we can always get better at everything we do. the department of state works from the southern border south. i don't feel it is our position to comment on interagency coordination north of the border. south of the border we have robust interagency coordination. we can always get a little better there. your mexican partners, are

they doing everything that they can in order to meet the challenge on their side of the b order? ofduring the beginning part the president's administration, there was a pause, as i think we did a mutual assessment of the security relationship. particularly on their side. lf,r the past year and a ha we have seen much closer collaboration, and unprecedented openness and frankness in our bilateral dialogue. is mexico doing everything that they can? they could improve. some of their efforts are not yet at the optimal level, but we remain optimistic and positive that they are moving in the right direction. >> i appreciate the optimism, but i am seeking to introduce a little dose of realism into it. and so, part of the challenge

is that you have flawless states and some of the northern part of mexico, where i have heard u.s. citizens from the region who have come to talk to me and say many who had businesses, longtime relationships on the immediate other side of the border, that they basically cannot operate their because the federal government's presence, i.e. the federal government of mexico's presence is not there. if you have lawlessness, then you have the opportunity for drug traffickers to avail themselves of that. though seems to me i have been an incredibly strong supporter of the u.s. and mexico relationship, we need to be honest in its relationship to make sure we are making the progress we need here and for mexico to be able to regain its sovereignty over parts of northern mexico it presently does not have. >> let me use some of my time i

yielded to interject with a follow-up on that. >> secretary foote, how would claim thatthe othe students disappeared in mexico with heroin bound for the u.s.? >> senator, thank you for the question. given that we have not seen the results from the final investigation from mexico, i'm not ina great position to answer that now. we would be happy to answer that for the record in writing. >> ok. >> thank you, mr. chair and thanks to the witnesses. first, to get an idea of the scope of this challenge on the mexican side, in terms of black tar heroin, is the poppy production for this heroin still significantly confined to the one state, or the more broadly

distributed? mexico is a big country. when we talk about a problem in mexico, i worry we are not being specific enough. >> yes, senator. our latest crop estimate that was produced about two months ago shows two major growing areas in mexico. the tri-border region up in the northern part of the region. those are the two major growing areas with very small sporadic spots in other parts of the country, but they are basically concentrated in those two areas. >> and the fentanyl is made in labs. most of it is coming in -- it is made in china or made in labs in mexico? are those the two main sources for fentanyl? >> that is correct. our understanding and awareness of fentanyl traffic has evolved

dramatically over the last six months as we have seen the crisis rise. so, in order of magnitude, i can't tell you. but i can tell you china is a significant supplier of fentanyl to the united states, where it is ordered by individuals on th e dark web on the internet. the postal service ships it directly to them. we also know fentanyl is shipped directly into mexico, in some cases, mixed with the e dilutions. clandestine fentanyl laboratories are in mexico. when you look at the vectors coming into the united states, those are the two main ones we see for the finished product coming into the united states, for its manufacture in mexico. >> i am sorry i did not get here

for your entire oral testimony. but on page one, the increased availability of purer forms of heroin allow for non-intravenous price,s relatively low and a small percentage of opiate prescription drug users transitioning to heroin. i am trying to unpack that statement and i am wondering if your statement puts enough of a finger on the prescription opioid problem. >> i have heard it stated through michael botticelli and whors that 80% of those overdose on heroin in this country started their addiction to opioids by being addicted to prescription opioids and then transitioning to heroin because they could get it for a lower price. is that an accurate statement? >> know, senator and i am glad you asked that question. of the numbers of individuals

use oper ically oids and then transition into heroin, that number is very small. >> nonmedical use? >> that is correct. so, the nonmedical use of oxycontin, and the nontraditional sense of getting it from the medicine cabinet. the percentage of those who transition to heroin is about 3%. use heroin, that 80% of those have abused opioids even medical use can be a risk factor. t