Transcripts For CSPAN3 Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20160716

Well, good morning everybody, thank you for turning out on a brutally hot day in the middle of july on a friday afternoon when you should really be some where else. We do have some important things to discuss and my name is jeffery kemp, i am the director of Regional Security programs here of the center of the National Interest. I am joined by two speakers and one commentator and paul pillar and demetrius let me talk about the format that we are going to have this morning. A fascinating book that was just written called the end void. My journey to the turbulent world to afghanistan, iraq and the un and had a distinguish academic record as well. He brings both academic to the project. Paul pillard, covering in southeast asia, i dont know what it is called today. Clearly critical part of the wo world. He also published a book which i do not have a hand out to show the krcameras. It is called why americans miss understand the world. Which is a country kritique of unique demetrius here is the president of the center for the National Interest and expert on russia as you will hear in a moment. Here i must put in a plug for the magazine of the National Interest of this month. Demetri fascinating essays, one by demetri and one on jacob on stalling diplomats. They are both worth reading and you should do that. Now, as you know we advertise todays event focusing on the crisis in syria. Um reaching new levels of intensity and particularly diplomatic interest as we speak secretary kerry as i understand it meeting in moscow. Well get to that issue in a moment. First before we do anything else, we thought it would be interesting and relevant to ask our three speakers to take 30 seconds twominutes to give their First Impression of what the tragic events that happened yesterday in nice leaning towards the war on terrorism and the responses that europe, russia and the United States and the middle east itself how those responses may or may not change. They should change of this event. I am going to ask to do a comment on the nice issue and well turn to syria. What do you think of nice. First of all, thank you for that on my book. I appreciate that very much. As far as nice is concerned, we dont know enough to make definitive or semi definitive judgment. Was this person tunisian and french having any relationships to terrorist groups or not, we dont know that yet. Second, was he self radicalized or was it driven by some extremi extremist ideology, which one . Given what has happened of the use of the truck against sif n civilians on the street is a difficult challenge that it imposes and what do you do about the method that he uses in some way that you and i talked, it is the worse case you can imagine. I am sure all of us given our two big events that are coming of the Republican Convention and the Democratic Convention are going to extreme measures just to think all kinds of scenarios and added to it this potentially use of a car to deal where it but i do think self radicalization or related to that, it makes the issue of syria and iraq and Counter Terrorism and what do you do domestically and of these groups of the season that we are in of these groups thank you very much, the interpretations and analysis are out there, out strips the fact as we know them. There is not much that we know so far. And, he also correctly points out if our concern is particular message of operation, really, there is no limit. You dont need anything hightech the kill a lot of people. I would put this incident in the same general category as basically what we have seen over the last month or so and the others in that collectively there is no one simple explanati explanation. The actual explanation if we knew everything about each one of those incidents, probably spans and ranges of some sort of connection with the events we are going to talk about later in the hour. Others that matters of people having their own agenda who latch onto the isis name or to some of our other concerns of terrorism and do what theyre going to do anyway. I would commend of your reading of the best interpreted round up of these events of the last several weeks that my friend Brian Jenkins had earlier this week of the hill. Brian concludes quite correctly although we had an appetite of simple explanations on these things, it is just isis or something else, more likely it is a messy set of very different circumstances with each one of these independencidents. Demetri. Okay, now syria. This is a terrible subject here. I am skimming through this as i came here this morning. One source suggest already since 2011, 6. 6 million internal refugees and 4. 8 million refugees who left the country primarily to join lebanon, turkey and europe. By all accounts, anything between 300 to 470,000 deaths and counting. And, on top of that, an Administration Policy towards syria has gone through many, many zigs and zags and i guess it is right in the middle of a zag or zig right now as we speak. Demetri has more to say thaabou that in a moment. Syria is going to be one of the key issues with the two candidates and their spiraling p partners are comiing up in the president ial debate in the election for november. I am going to ask for the views of whats on earth is going on in syria. Is it any good news . Do you see a solution and dealing these issues in the region and we look forward to hearing what you are going to say. Well, thank you again. I thought i would do two things. One is ask of what you did in terms of additional consequences of syria besides this terrible humanitarian of civilians have s suffered. Then to talk about kind of the policies and whats going on and where the wroprocess is. The process is saying something of u. S. , russian and corporation. This as we know has Many National security implications, well, not to us to the west, to the region and to the world. First, i think it is unquestionable that the growth of isis has a terrorist Guild Organization and has a unique terrorist organization with a set of base, with a concept for how to organize the world in office and with the worldwide appeal and recruitment in the thousands from all over the world. And with virtual information in many languages reaching to the world. And, them being inspired individuals and other parts of the world. I think brutality is slightly unique than others but not by much. It also generated a Population Movement because of the areas and factors. At times because of actual policy of something of the intent of push population out to other places is having an effect on europe in particular. Of the increase of the fear and the reality of islamist and terror globally, it brought russia back in the region and away it was not a case for a while. It becomes a kind of a proxy feel. It is a risk some probability of that. You cannot exclude it. It maybe draw and even help redraw the map. This is a heart wrenching. It is the crisis of many serious implications already and even the potential to produce more. So what do we do . First, i think that the urgency of dealing with the terrorist groups is one. I will talk about what our objective should be and how we prosecute it and two, what do we do about syria itself and the two are related and there are some questions of you know of what sequence does one pursue it and which one is more important and what time frame of short and longer term. I think it is very important to think positive and immediate and longer terms. What we have done has reached some progress of the 45 of the territory not only in syria but iraq is liberated. Second is the number of foreign citizens and individuals are coming to join. The group has declined. It has declined to 75 compare to the hike of the period. There are efforts to push a case both and well come through the tactic of russian American Corporation strategies to deal with it. My sense is that we need to look at and i advocate that we do to how to take the area back and to do it with a specified time frame of six months seem to be with the reasonable goal and my and for the United States and this could be done by the coalition path or russia that we pursue or use the afghan model that we did with the taliban and a meth od of combination and of local forces and Regional Forces with heavy u. S. Air power and with special forces with the forces to take over territory that remaining territory and administration is moving towards some of that and we refer the deployment of 500 Additional Special forces in iraq intended for that. We have such a model of intelligence of extremist that relatively working. Afterward of the i would recommend that. For a longer term, i think we face a huge challenge even if he succeed. In the short term assuming that we follow the model. What you do of the people who are apart of the group, particularly the foreigners that are there. A range of 2,000 to a high of 25,000 you get the range. And given the experiences that they have, this could be a huge security terrorist problem to places that they go to. What you do with liberated territory . Given the structure of fallujah and mostly damaged in the process of liberation. If we dont have a post strategy of getting in the syria part of the problem as dealing effectively of the government then as we saw in the case about alqaeda and iraq which we liberated the areas defeated more or less. What succeeded by something called it is a lot worse in some way of a bigger problem. We face a potential of something, a Group Exceeding of these issues. Whether it could be even worse. We need to think about not only deliberation of what to do but what to do with the people and what to do with the area area area i think the establishment of the legitimate government in syria is vital for a longer term strugg struggle from syria and associated to syria. The absence of the political settlement that produces a more legitimate government can play into the hands of terrorists and extremists. And, it should be our goal of terrorists and many extremists. There is a lot of ideas how this could come about. How long of the stay and transition and the structure of the state that might come. Come would argue starting in the middle Eastern Empire or super state that existed and federal structure is a lot about our economy locally of the notion of centralized and relatively recent. It will be apart of the solution of what you have shared in the center and how they compose off and what you do otherwise to sacrifice our allies in syria as well as others could be part of the solution. Now, i do want to take a lot more time of how we perceive. I have been in favor of seeking Common Ground with extremist an terror. I think it is important taking a clear understanding of the goals. The goal is not only of terrorism but the broader [ inaudible [ inaudible ] my fear is that well not solve the problem but at the same time it will be costly for us as we to be moving away from this destabilization of syria which is a legitimate political order and caught more problems between our allies in the region would feel and uncomfortable and ready there is a lot of mistrust and distrust in the u. S. In part of how we have dealt with syria and iran and that would make that problem much worse. I would hope that why we should perceive and going and corrobora corroborate. The issues of terrorism requires a regional understanding so that we can help facilitate regional settlement as well. I dont believe that well succeed of the twins objective without an understanding among key region power particularly syria, iran and saudi arabia. Those three powers are involved in a proxy war and given the risks they are already facing and future risks, theyre in a room joined diplomacy by us and russia two facilitates settlements can be accepted. If we and russia reach an agreement first and then with arab and turkey and iran being more workable and may reduce results and therefore we can prepare strong relations that we have and i hope that we keep our allies in confidence and making sure that gap that existed of the mistrust gap does not widen. We have to have a regional balance but also a structure. This is a union which is the most under institutionalized and the players have changed. Now we have two other external regions thats very important and iran and turkey. You need a structure and this is something that we and russia and china also to talk about this and architecture for the region that feels confidence and regulate and facilitate future acceptance and rules that can in addition to a balance of power can make this region progress of our greatest ability. Thank you very much indeed. Some of the major realities thats been saving with these problems are the following three. One, isis is losing. Some of the metrics on that regarding to territory law and recruits and so on. Thats a reflection of a number of things of the laws and the support and their absolute lack of allies and in the fact in the end they have a message that simply does not appeal. This trend was at the front post of how isis are preparing itself and followers losing all of their territories in iraq. Second reality is that a significant moderate arab opposition in syria has not materialized in the way that many expected or hosted to. This was punctuated sometimes back when poor general austin had to admit to a Congressional Committee our Defense Department had going for training them. Most of the gains on the grounds against isis have not come from such elements, they have come from the regime back in recent launch by russia. That reflects a wider trend that we see and other civil wars which of the more extreme elements can shove out the moderate ones. Fighting an internal war of an extreme way to pursue political objectives as oppose to a peaceful way. That does not surprise us. The group that sometimes use to hand out the list supposedly moderate opposition groups are not really all that modern. The very fact that they have become so closely on the ground, which is the alqaeda affiliate in syria. Third, i want to high is the assad regime is not going anywhere, any time soon. This is a reflection of the internal settlements of sources and support among many syrians who dont like the assad, look at the feasible alternatives and decided they would be even worse. Of course, it reflects external sources of the iranians playing a role that made a Different Military over the past years. One of the problems of our discourse along has been a lack of clarity of goals. And trying to pursue more than one thing at a time. The common terror side of things and the as separation for regime change. How the regime has made a use of prominence of extremest on the other side. The fact is the positive regime change in this situation is in compatible in ways of being able to counter disabled terrorist groups including but not limited to isis. Again, we slit in our overall discussion and this is included in the Obama Administration into the assad after the syrians broke out some five years ago. I would suggest of a matter of habit and reflection of the same general tendency this realization has set in some other important relevance of the government. It makes it all pertinent for us. One of them is turkey. They made a statement that talk about the need for his government to have some sort of improvements of relations with the syrian government. Thatll represent white a reversal of what turkish policy have been the last couple of years. And the one with russia has a lot to do with syria and indeed, it may in fact could be a preliminary to more active turkish innovation a couple of days ago there is a report of National Security sent to the damascus i think president obama has realized these realities that i just described even though so far the administration have not officially announced the assad must go idea. It has backed away from us. He seems to realize that the war itself rather than any particular political or ideology coloration of regime damascus has been responsible. The assad has been a powerful decade. It was only after the Syrian Civil War that isis got the great boost that it did by moving from iraq into syria and taking advantage of the violence and the care. I think our president realizes that the escalation of this war is likely to do more r harm than good. The one new development and thats whats being negotiated right now with the russians. Well hear more from demetre on that. I should lay out the facts. Based on what was leaked on this proposal was to provide a joint impliati Implementation Group layed id be jordan. Which i would suggest of a target of such efforts in addition to what could be done to isis. Isis maybe losing but our we cannot say the same thing of its position on the ground. If anything, it is to solidify the solution. The country is working closely with some of those opposition elements mentioned earlier. The russians have complained with some justification that contrary of assurances that we try to give them in connection of we have not managed to per sway other opposition groups with al nusral. This proposal may help to over come partly of the problem of physical close quarters between other groups. I would suggest to our advantage of russia to do more dirty work against alqaeda affiliate. So it probably makes sense to do Something Like this in the way of corroborations even if it falls short of the further goal of getting russia to lean heavily on assad with final political arrangements in the syrian settlements. We heard resources of proposal and surprisingly they seem to be powered mainly by a reluctant to let go of the assad and an inclination of russia doing things like mugging our diplomats and we still have major differences with them and other places like ukraine. Obama also realizes that to take out isis and using the term that he uses so much does not solve the terrorist problem. What do you do with the liberated territory. There is implications of nation i would building after military operation seized. T terror under any label is not to our advantage and we can expect for it to persist if there is chaos and disorder left afterwards. The problem for our policymaker until january 2017 is continuing erosion of isis and doing something more that we have been able to do, particularly of understanding what the russians can pan out. The longer term issues on syria quite briefly are one that is the next president will be facing and well be talking about next january. We are going to have to get used to the idea. There will be terrorism and including such as what we saw in the east and including attacks claim under the isis label as the brand name of choice of people of that. This whole fact is going to be the idea of what we do with liberated territory, well increase the pressure to accelerate the diplomatic track and trying to talk more seriously of an event a couple final points. I think we have to be conscious and the next administration will have to be conscious. The stability compares to what we have seen the last five years that we had with most of the time with the assads in power. This is included relatively quiet on the goal line front, i have to think our israel friends are looking at mix sediments. Assad has been the definitely they know. And his representative of uncertainty of security in the area and the devils there are not quite familiar with and controlling the grounds over the last five years. We should be conscious of the overall, lets be frank of the result regime change and before with tunisia this does not mean that assad is going to stick around for a long time. I do not see ex terternal supporters. His longevity in office is not a necessary condition for those external supporters to make things of other objectives that are pertinent to syria. You heard a lot of dewilhelmsd decentralization of power and i agree with that two or five years from now is going to involve some formulas thats looking like that. It is not a matter of who controls a powerful Central Government in damascus. Finally, i think we have to be ready for scenarios over the next few years of which the Syrian Civil War is some what of the war of the 70s and 80s which is almost a decade and a half which there is more exhaustion than they have in syria today. Thank you very much indeed. Now, well turn to demetri for comments. Thank you very much. The second term this year so mr. Trump would Say Something really good. I have to say that after looking at what is being discussed in moscow and of the written reports, it looks like let me say first this here in march of 2011, it lasted more than five years. It is a horrible human tragedy for the syrian people. It was discussed by lost of powers. It creates a challenge that [ inaudible ] we do not quite know what motivates different terrors or lo lone wolf or not so lone lone wolves the problem of antiterrorists in order to focus on this, lets remember how we got here. Syria started five years ago. It is clear that just to start with iran. How to put it delicately, he was not a nice man. In the 1982, i was writing a column for the christians at the time, they have destroyed most of it. President assad sr. Was in a brutal time. He also was as man who was respected by many major powers of their leaders including the United States. I yet to find anyone who truass. I yet to find anyone who works like him who says this is a man that can constructively conduct business. This is a leader. We have of a plan to how to get rid of him. We always find a way to work with him and a formula to ease him out of power in ways that is we cannot accomplish by but some kind of creative diplomacy back in 2011 when Hillary Clinton and the secretary of state [ inaudible ] negotiations would lead to conclusions and there will be elections. A senior associate told me at the time assad is a master in butchering. We are not interested in keeping him in power. The russians did not control assad and they did not want to create an impression giving up one of their clients. They wish to go to geneva. Then he decided to interpret of the geneva conference. I dont want to put thos those clearly, she demanded that as a precondition for the confidence there would be an agreement that assad would be during in power. First of all, well try to defeat it first. Second, can you defeat it . The relationship at that time was more problematic than today. The iranians were supporting assad. Moscow said, well, listen, it is not only we dont want to do it. Thats what we can handle. He was under a much greater pressure of today of the kind of talks and for his departure. That did not quite that did not quite work out. Here we are today. We are clearly we have a mutual interest with moscow to settle the conflict in syria. It is dangerous to the United States and our allies, it is clearly a present threat to russia. Quite a few isis fighters came from russia or theure asia region so they see isis as a serious challenge. And they dont quite like alnusrah. And they attack any any destruction of alnusrah is considered very much in the interest. Here our interests coincide. But the devil is in the details. We want not just isis and some extent alnusrah, we want to do it in a way that would not benefit Bashar Al Assad. The russians wont mind at this point for the destruction of the terrorist groups to benefit Bashar Al Assad and they dont want the local people surrendering to assad. We have to understand where we stand in our relationship with russia. The relationship is bad. The administration is talking about transsectional diplomacy within moscow meaning we dont have any linkages, we get moscow corporation where we have mutual interests but where we dont believe we have mutual interests, well continue with sanctions and well move infrastructure into Baltic States and were talking about an adversarial relationship with russia as far as nato is concerned. The administration was more successful in this transsectional diplomacy than i thought was possible because putin and his Foreign Ministers lab rov agreed to play ball on those terms. They took a position that their open to cooperation with the west first and foremost with the United States and while they are blaming the United States for the confrontation, they basically were saying, were open for business. And, yeah you have sanctions against us, but we, out of pride, do not demand the end of sanctions as a precondition for any diplomatic relations and they are very interested in cooperating on the army with syria and sharing intelligence information and russia is under pressure because they want to be a good friend of israel and they dont want to be an opponent of major gulf states, particularly saudi arabia, as russians have their own reasons to be cooperative. The problem starts when our interests are not the same. And can you have at the same time more and more adversarial relationships as a general background of the relationship, and to get russian cooperation that are clearly not in interest and most difficult for them, like giving up president assad. And the proposal which secretary kerry allegedly brought to moscow, the way it is being described by the Washington Post on the basis of the social administration and the basis of what i was told by this morning by a russian official, there were two components of this proposal. One, cooperation with the United States against isis and alnusra. That proposal was met, from what i understand, with almost an unqualifieden sho unqualified enthusiasm. That is what they want, and it would show putin and russia is not isolated and still a great power, perhaps almost a superpowerme superpower, and the other proposal is russia should ground the air forces. And you know this is a very difficult idea for russia because there is a battle for l aleppo and russia is playing a major role and this is a battle that is determined not just military, but political dynamics in syria. And for russia to tell assad, ground your air force at this critical point, this is very difficult for moscow. Particularly because, as paul mentioned, it is not just the question of iran, but also the Iraqi Government essentially telling the russians, you are doing a good job supporting the osad regime because it is companied by shiites and were asking moscow, to put it mildly, heavy lifting, in the context of the general deterioration of the americanrussian relationship. There is another problem here. The problem with russian elections. They will have Parliament Elections in september and what is the connection . Well we now how the elections are going to end. Putins party and the united russia is going to prevail. But putin decided this this time to have a relatively honest elections. Now relatively. But that, they dont mean that if somebody is a real enemy of putin they would be allowed to take part in the election. They will regulate heavily who is allowed to take part in elections. And of course federal tv channels would support the proputin party. What they allowed to do, however, this time is to have relatively almost completely honest counting of the votes. And they brought a new chairman of the federal Election Commission who is considered a real liberal and a person of integrity,el ga, and she moved against all Regional Governors who are expected of falsifying the results. Why is it relevant to syria . Because putin would have great difficulty explaining to the russian people after all of the poll picks a politics and rhetoric, how is president assad losing ground in syria and to replace their air force with russian airstrikes which would mean casualties for russia, that would not be popular either. I think for this reason it could be very difficult for the administration to get to use putin on the basis of the current proposal. Another problem with this proposal is that there are a lot of people in washington who dont quite believe Sergei Lavrov and there are people in moscow who dont believe kerry. And some are saying love rov is a Russian Foreign minister and charming and we do not believe in our basis of experience that lavrov has the power and the knowledge to have influence over Russian Military actions in syria or in ukraine. In moscow, there are are a lot are a lot of people around putin, particularly from socalled power agencies. John kerry, he does not have the real ability to deliver on his promised to moscow. He negotiates deals but if doesnt look likely that the military would quite cooperate with him in terms of providing full assistance to russia in terms of any joint military action against any groups, rebel Groups Associated with alnusrah and the way the United States would likely define who are legitimate, that would exclude a lot of groups, which russia considers terrorists. And that maktakes me to my fina point. So i think for the negotiations between the United States and russia to have a chance, we have to make our own choice. What is our priority in syria . Is our priority isis or alnusrah or to remove osad from power . This is not an easy choice. Because again, we are not a free actor. The gulf states, turkey, there are a lot of countries in the region who are friends who do not want to see an arrangement, which would benefit president assad. But in the end of the day, my review of the leadership is to make difficult decisions. My assumption is this will be a job for the next administration. Thank you very much. All three of you. And now were going to open it up for 20, 25 minutes of questions and comments. Because were on live tv, there are some ground rules. First, when you are called upon, wait for the mike, because without the mike we wont be able to hear you around the world. Secondly, even though i may know who you are, please state for the record who you are and where you are from. And then thirdly, please be relatively brief in your cue or your comment. So im looking out. Patet pet oouf former u. S. Ambassador to syria. I agree with almost all ive heard hear today but ive also talked to people who wouldnt agree. So let me put myself for a moment in their shoes. Even allowing that osad could hang out to power with Russian Support in american acquiescence, how does that stabilize syria in that, as was pointed o pointed out, you have 11 million refugees or displaced people and perhaps dimitri could comment but it seems russia might not mind many of the 4. 8 million syrians that are in turkey and europe remaining there to trouble nato countries and the like, but how do you put humptydumpty back together again since what we would consider the legitimate opposition seems so weak, particularly as was pointed out in terms of military forces on the ground, which are not united in any way. So you commented on that a bit, ambassador, but what you said is all correct, but how do you do it . So, zal, would you like to say a few words or all of you . Putting humptydumpty back together again. It would be very hard, clearly. But i think diplomacy, the job of diplomacy in my view, sometimes it is tough to make choices like dimitri said. Sometimes you have to find Common Ground where you can address the problem. And i believe that that is why i didnt get into the issue of bashar and when he goes the issue of constituting a legitimate government in syria that has broad support, has got to be part of the diplomatic conversation. If it isnt, in my view, then an exclusive focus on going after the terroristic opposition would be very difficult to sell, but which is one could risk it, but it isnt going to solve the problem ultimately of terror in my view from syria. It is going to only lead to more terrorist groups. Ive experienced this firsthand. We did indeed with ending the civil war in iraq in an enduring way. We defeated al qaeda in iraq by the time 2008, they were largely neutralized. But because the political problem was not resolved, in fact some steps were taken backwards by Prime Minister maliki the second term, it led to, in come bbination with syri to a bigger terrorist problem. And my discussion with the russians would be, unless they have a convincing alternative argument that addresses the issues, how are we going to solve this problem of sunni and arab extremism by area if we dont address this issue. There should be creativity as how do we sequence it and the process for doing it and geneva framework may have been a good way to do it. There may be alternative ways to proceed. But my judgment is if you are serious about counterterrorism not only in the shortterm, but in the longer term, there has to be a political settlement that establishes a legitimate order that allows the refugees to come back and it will still take a lot of effort and cooperation to rebuild the state and it wouldnt be easy, it would be difficult phases and there will be violence and i think without that we will have this problem maybe in spades down the road. Paul, dimitri . Certainly humptydumpty is not going to be put back together the way it was before all this started. That is a good point. And we have to resist the tendency to think of this in black and while, all or nothing terms. Some of the things we alluded to earlier, more than one of us, about decentralization of power, of recognition of who controls the real estate and in various parts of the country is going to have to be part of the formula. I think something that recogn e recognizes and gives appropriate weight to the fears without necessarily Bashar Al Assad being the guy on top is part of the formula. And four, say the next president ial term, and if and this is what i understand to be the tenure of your question, we need a modicum of stability to take care to at least reduce if not end the killing and enable refugees, some of them to move back, we might have us a more realistic goal during the next few years, not so much a final settlement but something described as a frozen conflict. We dont say nice things about frozen conflicts but they are better than the kind of conflict we have now and that might be a weigh station toward putting a new humptydumpty back together. Well, in my book part of the solution may be sitting at this table, and im talking about am b bass dor, i would send him to damascus to talk to president assad because it is a remarkable situation that we have no serious contact with a maimer party to the conflict. And when we allowed the russians, who we dont exactly view as our friends, and rightly so, we allow them and the iranians to have a monopoly on the negotiations with osad. After five years of this war, that should end. And you obviously have an experience of how to deal with rather unpleasant characters in afghanistan and iraq and how to induce solicitation when you could not get rid of them or easing them out as your objective. I think we should talk to assad. And second thing we need to do is have a broad conversation with russians about our relationship. This transactional diplomacy where aim is on one issue and our allies on another, that can work but it takes you only so far. When you have real difference in interests, it doesnt work. In order for this to work, a country like russia, they need to feel that a real improvement in relations with you is also in their interest and it is feasible as long as they are willing to talk about fundamental and realistic priorities. The third thing, in my view, is you need to start the negotiating process in geneva and make clear we dont have unrealistic demands like assaad making the commitment to leave at the outset but at the same time, we are firm, like you said, a noble settlement in syria and that is the way we will say we believe it should work and we should suggest a structure of the process in which that would lead to assaeds leave of power and it may be an element of decentralization or an element of giving more power to the communities and evidence, whatever would allow us not necessarily to get rid of assad altogether but when he is a huge polarizing factor in iraq. I think our problem in iraq or in syria should not be assad, it should be as him as a dictator and that we should folk on. Well, congratulations. We look forward to that. Dimitri has appointed me. And i would have to just adhere that it seems to me that to if there is to be any return of the 11 million from either inside syria or outside of syria, they are not going to come back unless there are very clear security measures to make sure they are not butchered again or kicked out again and that has to be part of the formula no matter what we do with Bashar Al Assad. Steve. Yes. Thank you. Could you announce who you are, please, for the world. Steve weather maker, at the Stage Department in years past. I certainly take the point that these two goals of removing osad from power and defeating isis may be compatible but we do have another and perhaps the overriding objective of ending the war. And let me just ask in a fairly pointed way whether the goal of ending the war is compatible with assad remaining in power. And in asking that question, ill draw an analogy to iraq. We spent a lot of time in washington talking about what went wrong in iraq after 2008. And i think it is virtually unanimous today what went wrong in 2008 was Prime Minister maliki. He shifted his government and started governing in a sectarian manner and what you have in iraq was the shiite minority giving rise to what we have today. And very few in washington disagree with that. And if someone were to say lets restore maliki to power, i admit that was a bonehead suggestion to bring peace to iraq. Why is it that in syria anyone thinks that assad could bring peace to the country . There are a couple of differences, in syria were talking about an ollowhite and maliki didnt create 108 million refugees and kill hundreds of thousands of people, but assad has. How is that man going to be able to restore stability and the war in syria . Well, tell us, ambassador. [ laughter ] maliki was Prime Minister was 2006 through 2014, if im not mistaken. And there was maliki one and maliki two. Maliki one, when we were there, in the surge and the reconciliation took place during that period and a unity government took place and he moved against bashra and another city. And we need to look at how maliki one behaved one way and why maliki two behaved in another way and i think the key factors were were two. One, the withdrawal, and he became fearful that the sunni officers might carry a coup and absence military presence so he started purging the professional officers and putting political loyalists in their place. And second syria, because he also saw this sunni uprising as he saw it and he thought the combination of sunni iraq and syria make it together and change the map. So and maliki two, as you described and i wouldnt think of bringing him back, so you are right. So conditions also matter in other words. But i would think that is why because of what points you made, i think we need a political settlement. And we need a political settlement that is has legitimacy to it which means the facts of complexity of ethnicity and sectarian factors have to be taken into account and new dispensation. And as to when bashar goes, does he become the head of the alloite region and there are issues you would think about but there has to be there has to be a political settlement that gives a new order legitimacy and that everyone can work with because it will be difficult, even with that, to establish stability and order and without that certainly it will be very difficult, i agree with you. Right. And the history of middle east dictators moving through an amicable province is not particularly promising, yes. This gentleman here. New precedence. Im david johnson. The first part of this is for zal. I was took note of your comment about needing to have a postliberation strategy as isil was pushed out. And with the global the ie in ramadi so im getting personal experience with this so do you view this as something that is a u. S. Government responsibility or something turned over to your former colleagues at the u. N. And told to have a nice day. And for dimitri if i could, while i have the microphone, a lot of ink has been spilled about the russian desire to maintain its base in syria and do you think that it would be useful or necessary for the u. S. To say some things positive about the longevity of that publicly or privately in order to facilitate a greater degree of cooperation in syria . Thank you. I could say on the first one i could quickly respond. First, i think we should accept the russian not have a problem with the russians having access to the facility, making it easy for you. And on the first one, i think it has to be a plan that the u. S. Plays in, but for the liberated areas. But it shouldnt be exclusively ours others should play as well and could be orchestrated by us and russia, if we do this together, or by us and russia through the u. N. And us and russia with regional players. There are alternative ways but i wouldnt want to take exclusive responsibility on behalf of the United States for the liberated areas. Now it is always the case in events like this as we approach the Witching Hour hands keep going up. So ive got four people on the list and what im going to suggest now is we take two questions from the floor and then have you answer and then the last two and we will wind it up. So the first person i have now is rob yes. Thank you, gentlemen, really fascinating presentations. Just two brief comments. Name. Im sorry, rob satlof. The washington institution. And first, i do think it bears repeating, i think everybody appropriately referred to the tragedy of syria in the last five years, that the assad regime is responsible for about 90 of the deaths. Right. There is a sense in the conversation that oh, assad, oh, isis, civil war, a lot of bad guys, we should recognize that there is a massive imbalance in responsibility for deaths, which just doesnt of course, it doesnt ease the burden we should have against isis. But in terms of looking at this case, we should recognize that. Second, i guess it is related to this, it is not selfevident why, as isis loses, if we are going to say that we are positive that isis is losing, why is it selfevident that at this moment it becomes less of an opportunity to bring about the end of assad. Which one could make the argument that as isis was rising and we needed to focus more on the battle against the territorial control, you could make the argument that we needed to focus our energies there but if indeed we have on the horizon the end of isis, as a control of territory in syria and we deal with groups that dont have any coherent territorial control, wouldnt it logically make sense that we could entertain going back to what our prime directive was when this started in 2011 to address the fundamental government issue which triggered this massive humanitarian crisis which is assad. My question derives from an important comment that you said which is what john kerry doesnt bring to the table and i thought you were going to Say Something else, that what john kerry doesnt bring to the table, which is which is a legitimate fear on the part of the russians that the americans might do something about it in case the russians dont live up to their end of the bargain which the russians havent done, i would argue, throughout all of their arguments visavis syria. And mainly it is the question, when you think about the next administration, you hinted at this briefly, do you recommend or would you recommend that the next administration be willing to invest more in terms of men, material, resources, whatever, to affect this strategic balance . I think it is reasonable to argue that the russians affected the strategic balance quite impressively through their deployment relatively modest deployment of force. Is this a model for the United States in the next administration . Should the u. S. Be willing to invest to effect the strategic balance if only if only the goal is to compel a political outcome and i agree completely with the political outcome that you described as the appropriate objective. Excellent question. Hold it, guys. Because i want jacob to go forth and then you could answer both. Jacob hall gren, from the natural interest. Jeff and to panel, when i go to these washington meetings as were here today, i was at a National Intelligence Council Meeting a few weeks ago and it first popped in my head there. If donald trump were at this meeting, what would he think of it . And i think he would say the word missing the elephant in the room here. That we started and weve gotten into an abstract discussion of syrias future, but the question that i think trump would want to have answered, or the average american is, as this syria conflict grinds on, and you have these events in france and elsewhere, as isis is being, i think it is obviously taking severe losses on the battlefield. Are we going to confront more terrorism, are we going to become less safe at home and is there anything we can do about it or are we just going to have to suck it up . Is it going to be a constant litany of bloody events that take out 50 to 100 people that are not mass casualties. Those are two rather set of similar questions. So who would like to go first . Let me address robs question first. Of course, one thing, as long as isis is still there, then of course the regime has the big talking point between us and the terrorist, so that is the point. But let me say a couple of other things. Your question, rob seemed to presuppose, what was your prime directive and presupposes regime change it will always be there. And i say where exactly to u. S. Interests lie. It is a lot easier to argue when you have a beast like isis or like nussra and getting into what jacob raises which ill comment on in a moment, there are clear interests that we share with the russians and a lot of others that are very defensible, whereas the political coloration of the regime in damascus doesnt rise to the same standard. And you make a point about the the balance of well the fighting started five years. It wasnt a matter of this assad regime, and dimitri gave us earlier regime, but butchering people for the last 46 years, a war has started and it has been a very destructive war as a result of an insurrection. And i just have to make a couple of other points. You know, jacob asks, what would trump think about this. One of the things going through my mind is what president would say in response to the to your question, were almost there with beating isis, so lets divert our attention to this regime change business and i think of all of the criticism that is launched against obama about iraq and the whole line of argument that, well, we took our eye off the ball when when then isis or whatever called it al qaeda in iraq. Al qaeda in iraq was almost defeated but we took our eye off the ball and now we have isis. It seems the same criticism could be made against what you are saying here. And finally, in terms of effecting strategic balance, in favor of whom . Who is the alternative . Al sham or the five guys that the general recruited . That is the question we have to ask. On jacobs question. Ive written repeatedly on the theme that we shouldnt equate terrorist threats to us in the west, whether it is in washington or new york or nice or wherever, with bad guys controlling real estate on the ground in some distant sandy place like syria or iraq or afghanistan. It simply does not work that way. So the bad news is that even when the caliphate is no more, and there isnt this many states in iraq, were still going to have a lot of this stuff. Only kind of offsetting good news is that in so far as isis is seeing more unequivocally as a loser, and maybe that is the way mr. Trump would put it, they will attract fewer semiradicalized people to do terrorist acts in the name of isis. But i have to balance that with some bad news again, that even if you dont have the isis name out there, even if it loses its appeal as a brand that it has had the last few years, you still have the radical behavior. And the guy who drove the truck in nice still might have driven the same truck. Briefly, gentlemen. Sure. We have two more people to go. Oh, well, on robs question, i would say that we need to have first we have to go after al qaeda i mean daesh and alnusra. The sooner they lose territory, the better from my perspective. But for the table to be set for political legitimacy to come, i would i would agree with you, we havent played our cards in a way that would incentivize the bashar side or even the russians and the iranians to be more flexible. Therefore, i would, for example, favor taking down bashars helicopters and planes if they threaten population centers. I would i would do that. I would put that on the table. I think then you will get more cooperation. And because right now, john kerry is in a relatively im sorry to say this, hes not in a very good position. We have threatened a few times that this is the last chance and if this doesnt happen, so his credibility is it problematic right now. So on that on mr. Trump, i would think that he probably would favor the first part of what i said, to accelerate the move against the terrorists, the afghan model that i mentioned and set a time table for liberation of territories within six months of my presidency and mosul and raqqa and all of these places will be done, will be finished. And second, that you obviously that since the threat will go on, well have to review some of our our dollars situation policies to see whether we are hardened enough, what do we do when we know that someone is interested in daesh, but he hasnt done anything or she hasnt done anything yet, what do we do in that environment . What do we do on the issue of guns in what do we do on a whole range of other things. Short of either we do something and we move against you, but other things we dont do anything, i think we need to review what the set of steps are, consistent with our constitution and laws, what else could be done. Because this problem isnt going to go away any time soon. Even if we make progress on syria and progress in syria would be helpful. To answer your question, if we had powerful positions which we could easily identify and arm, i would certainly be in favor of that. But if you are talking about Groups Associated with al qaeda, being a likely beneficiary of our assistance, that for me would be much more problematic. Agree with the ambassador on everything except our option to attack bashars forces and particularly his air force and his helicopters. When he threatened population centers. When you threaten whatever unless you dont threaten the United States and american allies. Because russia s has 400 missiles which are there and russian made 300 missiles which have already been provided to the Bashar Al Assad regime, and they would not be concerned about our motives and what the russians would do if we exercise this option. When you start thinking about what kind of an escalation it could start, whether it is something that we really want to experiment with in this situation with assad and there is nothing i can say positive about assad whatsoever except that he so far has never attacked the United States, unlike isis. Now for me, it is not a preferred solution. The preferred solution for me is a different solution. The preferred solution is to look at our historical experience, at how the nixon and Kissinger Administration has outmaneuvered the russians in the middle east and specifically in syria, making deals with local leaders and with president assad and with egypt and with president assad of syria and if you start the process, were all i think is the right way to go, the political process in syria, and that political process in syria cannot work without very strong economic assistance which can be provided only by the United States and our allies in the gulf. That would provide us that process starts with the very powerful leverage not only to avoid future attacks on civilians, but frankly on reducing russias role in the region because in that kind of a competition, when economic factor is important, russia is not a friend of the United States. We have a question here. Im kerry lee early, an attorney in washington, d. C. And my question in some ways follows the is suggested by what dimitri just said. I have been wondering for some insight on the internal political possibility of life after assad. And that also invites the question about the possible role of the military. And im going to leave it as an openended question as general insight and facts about what you see. Thank you very much. And the last question here. Paul sanders with the center for the National Interest. My question was about the use of American Military power, which i think ambassador already addressed and Dimitri Simes also somewhat addressed. So we could probably skip that. Okay. Unless paul would like to well, you all have an opportunity to ask answer any questions you feel like. But particularly this issue about the military would be an interesting comment. Paul, do you have any insights into the Syrian Military . I dont have detailed into the insights. Ill make the general, not very helpful response, that in the whole set of permiations of different forms of military settlement, even if it is over a piece of damascus or the piece in the northwest, yes, the military forces that have been fighting this war on assads side can have, like military forces in much of the rest of the region, a political role. It is not we dont think of our military that way, but i think were going to have to think of it that way as far as anything approaching a political settlement in sear is concerned. And i would allude to my previous comment that there had been ample indications of discontent among a lot of the aloites doing the fighting with assad, so there is daylight that could be used there and negotiated in political situations. Do either of you two have lastminute comments . [ inaudible ]. And political exploitation and im talking about something longerlasting and some kind of equilibrium or something that could settle the area down for for a period of time. In 30 seconds, you could have a crack at that. Want to go back to what dimitri said, that is my last resort option because you have to set the table for a negotiation that incentivizes. And even if the as you correctly point out, that the nixon and kissinger maneuver, there was a military dimension to their maneuver. And i would also look at a broader understanding with russia as another way to deal with this issue. But i wouldnt exclude if you are serious about that objective, exclude some road for u. S. [ inaudible ]. Right. Now under Syrian Military, i think it depends on what the settlement is. It may be the settlement will have a significant central force. It may include some if it is a con federal arrangement, they will have their own Security Forces to deal with. And in kurdistan and the federal constitution that i helped negotiate, the peshmerga was recognized as a Regional Response for local security so i think we need a consensus politically both among iraqis and other key players as are we restoring a military tastate, where it would be a large military force at the center or is it a decentralized system and the Security Forces are maybe there is a National Army but a lot of local Security Forces to maintain order. Thank you all very, very much. This is this has been an extremely, i think, informative and wellarticulated session by our three speakers and by the commentators. I have to confess, though, that i i leave here not particularly optimistic that there is going to be any resolution of any of these issues any time soon. And therefore can confidently guarantee that well be back in this room or another room with a new administration going over much the same ground in 2017. Thank you all very much. Thank you. [ applause ] [ session concluded ] [ session concluded ] coming up this weekend on American History tv on cspan, a look into organized crime in the south during the 1950s. The final report was issued in 1951 and it concluded that organized crime syndicates did exist. We are not myths and that they depended upon the support and the cooperation of Public Officials around the country. Saturday evening at 7 00 eastern author tammy ingram discusses her upcoming book. And at 8 00 on lectures history, peter cuss nick argues whether the atomic bomb was needed to end the war in the pacific. Former japanese Prime Minister hirota meets with the soviet ambassador in tokyo to discuss the possibility of ending the war. Malic, the soviet ambassador writes back to the soviet union saying the japanese are desperate to end the war. It was becoming clear to them. American leaders knew that too. And at 10 30, the 50th anniversary of the National Organization for women. In the 1970s, we got the fair credit act which meant women could have credit cards in their own right. Until then, a woman lost her credit card if she were divorced or if her husband died. The fair housing act, a landlord could say i dont rent to women. That became illegal. Title nine, which finally prohibited sex discrimination and education. It is a lot more than sports, it is womens promotion and womens advancement. And on sunday at 10 00, on road to the white house, rewind, the 1964 democratic and Republican National convention with Lyndon Johnson and Barry Goldwater accepting the republican nomination. I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. Over the last four years, the world has begun to respond to a simple american belief. The belief that strength and courage and responsibility are the keys to peace. For a complete American History tv schedule, go to cspan. Org. The hardfought 2014 primary season is over, with historic conventions to follow this summer. Colorado florida. Texas. Ohio. Watch cspan as the delegates consider the nomination of the first woman ever to head a Major Political party. And the first nonpolitician in several decades. Watch live on cspan, listen on the cspan radio app or get video on demand at cspan. Org. You have a frontrow seat to every minute on cspan, all beginning on monday. Well, we are outside of the quicken loans arena and this is the facility where the 2016 Republican National convention is going to take place. Were standing on level four of the quicken loans arena and were in one of the suites, normally a hospitality suite which is converted for broadcast purposes for cspan and on this level there are some hospitality suites for guest but about 30 broadcast media suites and i was involved in the early infighting, you might say, to get the suites more the media and get that share. Which is about normal. It is about what we normally do. And while we get the total number, they are actually assigned individually through an intermediate process through the house Radio Television gallery and they did well by cspan with you in this location. The delegates will be seated facing facing all of them all of them facing the stage, which we call the podium. We call it the podium complex. And while the seating chart has not been announced, it is usually kind of a fan shake with people all facing as you move out, they face inward toward the complex and we have aisles, a center and side aisle so people could move and media that have floor passes could move and what not. So well see that next week when the plan comes out and when the seats go down and when the state that shows where the state seating will be and all of the color will come in and take place and you really get a view of it. There are a number of standup broadcast positions. And some of those are at floor level on each end, on the end zones, and then two huge Network Anchor booths at the far end for cnn and nbc. They opted for those positions. It cost them more to build obviously than the others. Three others, fox, abc and cbs, are in upper a level up in what were handicapped seating areas where they had built on them and we have other ample handicap seating elsewhere of course, after they take those positions. So you have the broadcasters up here that we call them nonnetwork but that means they are not one of the five. They may be affiliates of those, in other words. And then we have those same groupings with standup positions on the floor and some up on the level in handicap broadcasting areas too. So they are everywhere. Down on the floor, if you could see them, there are two major side camera stands. And those will have Television Pool camera on the front tier and still photographers on the upper tiers. The same way the big Center Camera stands, if you could see it from here and it faces the podium. It will have two Pool Television cameras and our house production camera on the front tier and then the upper tiers are still photographers. The print press seats are in. They are fixed positions, with tables and electrical and internet capability built in and they are decorated with the red, white and blue and the stars and they look real fine. The stage reflects a trend that started in 1996 in san diego with steps in the front. And those steps were put in and the podium that we call the stage was lowered somewhat to give more of a feeling of openness, not like a ten foot high battleship approach where you look down on the delegates. And that is endured. We have had steps in every design since then. This particular design was brought to us by our executive producer phil along and his company and the designer joe stuart from los angeles and eddy nassy from new york and they have done this for us before and they are experts at it. You could see it has large screens and it has lighted steps and what we arent seeing today are the tremendous way we can we can vary the look of this with lights. Not just on the steps, but everything. The lights can change many colors throughout the stage. And as you will see, people will enter from one side and make their speech out at the point and then they will exit from the other side. And there is a small bandstand to one side where a house band will keep the flavor and there could be some other entertainment. We mentioned the lighting grid and other things that hang. I think the lighting truss itself was 140,000 pounds which reminds me of when we went to the houston astrodome in 1992 and it had been built very rapidly. And there were to records to show what the ceiling would hold. And most they had ever hung on there was 40,000 pounds to 50,000 pounds and we were going to hang at least 125,000 pounds. So we had to do major studies to see that it would hold our weight. And we did. And it was also an acoustical disaster for a conventiontype thing. Because it wasnt built for spoken word at floor level and there was an echo in there that if you said something loudly at floor level, it echoed throughout the place in some capacity for 17 seconds. Sound would go into crevices and come out with an echo chamber, louder than when it went in. And we had to deal with that, too. And that brings us with the fact that the sports arena are more modern and this is more modesh and we had modern and we had some acoustical improvements to make from our particular sound from floor level and they are going to work fine. But weve been i think this is our fifth straight convention in a sports arena of approachly this size. Prior to that, we were in two dome stadiums and that was the superdome in new orleans in 88 and then the astrodome in houston in 1992. But for now, at least, this has become the standard of what you see. Well, we are in what is known as media row and media row is an extension and variation of what has been known as radio talk show row and this time it was the idea of the communication director to vary it and enhance it and make it more than just radio talk shows and it will have broadcast positions in here and also the digital media, the new angle this is the digital age and that will all be in here. And there will be defined spaces of different variations. And we have quite a scenic design that will be in here to spruce this place up. You could see a few the initial panels but theyve just started. This is a very beginning of that. It will be a popular hub of activity during the convention, with interviews going constantly all of the time. And it is a good place to come by and see and be involved in. The Republican National convention from cleveland starts monday. Watch live every minute on cspan. Listen live on the free cspan radio app. It is easy to download from the apple store or google play. Watch live or on demand any time at cspan. Org, on your desktop, phone or tablet, where you will find all of our Convention Coverage and the full convention schedule. Follow us on twitter and like us on facebook to see video of news worthy moments. Dont miss a minute of the 2016 Republican National Convention Starting monday at 1 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan. The cspan radio app and also on cspan. Org. Now a look at antipoverty efforts in the u. S. Panelists discuss what the federal government can do and the role of the labor market. This was hosted by the american interprize institute and it is about two hours. Good afternoon, everyone and welcome to the American Enterprise institute. My name is robert dore and im the mortgage fellow and poverty studies here at aei and im very pleased to welcome you to this important discussion of our nations antipoverty programs. For some time now, the leadership of aei has felt that greater attention needs to be paid to helping those at the bottom of the economic scale. Move up and out of poverty. There is a deep frustration that despite the fact that we do a lot as a country to improve the material well being of struggling americans, we are not helping them achieve a station in life where they no longer are in need of ongoing government support. This frustration, i know, is felt in a lot of places. At the white house, in academia and other think tanks, in neighbors and communities around the nation and in congress. And to offer some ideas on how we can move forward, the Republican Study Committee of the house of representatives earlier this summer produced this report strengthening our safety net to empower people. Which will be the topic of todays seminar. And we are very pleased to have three members of the house here today to talk about their report and to hear reactions from two notable experts on these programs. But first, and perhaps most importantly, we are going to start outside of washington and hear from experts in the field of helping lowincome americans move up. They work in places far removed from the halls of congress. But their work has informed some of the ideas contained in the steering committees report. I have a special affinity for those these outside of washington experts, because that is where i worked prior to coming to washington. I spent 19 years working in social services agencies, in the state and city of new york, and i have some idea of the dedication, heart and wisdom of people who work in these programs and i also love to be among them. So im very pleased to welcome and introduce to you our first panel which feature three leaders of communitybased organization. First up, will be o dell cleveland, from mt. Zion Baptist Church of North Carolina. He was the president and ceo and cofounder of the welfare reform project and began as a ministry of mt. Zion and became the first Faithbased Community activity and developed a brought range of partnership on national and state and local levels and including faith based partnerships and the North Carolina aarp and the North Carolina medical society administration. Were glad to have you. But dont start yet. Because ill introduce roberta as well. And Roberta Keller is from a Poverty Agency in dunkirk, new york. She fostered opportunities for low income individuals to help them gain economic opportunities. They have been awarded several different shuns since shes been director, including the department of housing and urban development homeownership award and best Practices Agency status by the state department and the new York State Community Action Technology award. In 1999 miss kerl was awarded the director award by the new york state childcare coordinating counsel, a council i at one point was a member of so im happy to have you and she received the new York State Senate women of distinction award. Dean hammond has worked in low Income Housing for more than 30 years including founding a company focused on hud housing, management software. He joined the board of the foundation for Affordable Housing in 2004. Served as the chairman and was contracted act as president before stepping down in 2012. Hes now a consultant to the board. Dean is a retired army major and was awarded the purple heart and distinguished flying cross during the vietnam war and the Defense Service medal as chief of aviation of a military Training Mission in saudi arabia. After these three presentations, well have the congressman come up on present on sections of the report and the professor and the doctor come and make comment on the report and during parts of this and in at different times we hope to have a good dialogue with the audience as well with questions. I have one other person to introduce and shes here somewhere and that is nichol noise and shes the timekeeper and shes over there and she will give signs to keep everybody on schedule. Im sorry to say that, but that is part of what happens when you try to run a wellrun seminar. And i want to say one last thing about seminars, because roberta is from chit aqua county, some may know it is one of the earliest institutes of good thinking and sharing of ideas in the United States, and when i when president johnson was president , he would get frustrated with things, he would say were going to have one of these gosh darn chit aqua semibbars seminars. That didnt get the laugh i wanted but the point is, this is Something Like that. A free and open discussion. And with that, ill start with odell. I want just to say thank you for coming. When sme talked about time, everyone looks at the baptist preacher. Than where you need to keep the time for. First, were just glad that this discussion is on the table in a form that goes on both sides of the aisle. When i read the book of conservative heart and look at the other reports, it is interesting because 20 years ago when i got into this business, i was in Divinity School and i was doing my masterss thesis when the 1996 welfare reform act came out and the thesis was the black churchs response to the 1996 welfare reform act and in that piece of paper we talked about how could we do this and then ten or 15 years later we were able to move people off the welfare rolls to the point they have about 11 million in earnings. What we didnt do a good job is to document how much saved us from if odell was on the system, when you look at that number line of zero and you start looking at the negative part, how much savings did it come to the bottom line. But when you start looking at the human impact in folks lives and how all of a sudden people start feeling good about themselves because they are working and being successful, all of a sudden you had the Faith Community and in particular the black community, the Faith Community that so many people believe in is still on the front lines of helping people and giving them a hand up, not a hand out. And being the cheerleader and helping and going into the Community Helping Business Owners say, hey, listen, you dont have to go half way around the world on a mission trip. I have a mission for you right here on the corner. Come on, exercise your faith. And get involved and lets help create jobs and help with these kind of things and thats how we became so successful. But you have to understand, one of the things that we did is the fact that people who dont want help, we left them alone. You cannot make somebody want to change. And i think in part of discussion when i read the papers, and a lot of it, you will make someone oren courage someone to get married or someone who has been married for 31 years who i love my wife who is wide open and all of that good stuff, that is for the young guys in the group, you have to want to be married. No form of legislation is going to make someone get married. But i was so disappointed when i read that the Current Administration took the work requirements out. The work requirements must be put back in and they must stay in because that is a big driver that helps make all of this work. Because if you are asking the social workers in the dss system, the department of social service, that is what we refer to it in North Carolina, that is not going to work. That is not their forte. So when they partner with us, usually they give you the hardest to serve. Because no one is people understand the game. They usually give the Faith Community the hardest to serve, how are you going to get this person employed and that is when we do our miracles. No hocuspocus, just going and building relationships with Business Owners and getting them to buy in. And making a success. And when you get through having them buy in, you go back to the individual and get him or her to buy in. And so believe it or not, the baptist preacher is going to push the time on because i look forward to the discussion. And im just so excited that we have this conversation. Because in spite of peoples biases, prejudice and stereotypes about poor people, especially poor black people who look like me, a lot of your stereo types are not accurate