>> coming up next, crude oil exports. and the senate environment committee on nuclear safety. >> of the members of the supreme court don't like something, it just reaches out and bring that into the cord and starts to pivot on that, which is of course contrary as anything could be. >> c-span radio begins a series of oral history interviews with supreme court justices. this week from 1971, former chiefs burrell and one on online at c-span.org and xm satellite radio channel 120. >> a hearing on national security strategy, prime minister david cameron discusses the syrian civil war. the british defense budget and nsa documents leaked by edward snowden. the committee is made up of the house of commons and house of lords. this is about one hour and 15 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> i welcome people to the session. this is in the comments this evening. but hopefully we welcome you. >> thank you. it turns out that you are most welcome nevertheless. this committee is very supportive especially that we are very anxious to hear from you. and what we hope today by having this passage. >> making sure that we analyze the threats including only analyzer programming better than that we plan across government better than that we make better decisions and i think that it has been a real success for getting together the relevant departments and we are considering a from a domestic perspective rather than an overseas perspective and making sure it plays together and it has proved itself across a number of subjects and i am hugely enthusiastic about this record. i think that works very well. it joins up with the champlin home secretary in a way that others have not been joined of in the past. i think it is a reform that would endure. >> he say that it enables you to look at domestic ideas. my impression is that it's very foreign policy centered. >> we have a reasonable mixture. if we take 2011 we have 36 of the covered foreign policy topics in the 14 security related issues like counterterrorism and defense. and i think that as an argument we can do more domestic subjects and it's always key that we discuss more. the point that i would make is when we discussed the foreign-policy sectors and i think that is hugely helpful. in two different ways. you're talking about syria as a foreign-policy issue, you also have to have the counterterrorism experts worry about the blowback from the radicalization that is being fostered there. and it's very good that you have and all the expertise. we can think about things like visas and border access. all those things that are important part of the relationship. >> we take it very simpers way. and they're sort alongside each other. and this includes the national security strategy. including the other reviews. >> yes, i can see what you're referring to. and you know, and this sets the context what we want to deal. and the strategies are then and only then a part of considering the resources issues. i think that would be difficult. and you have to consider what is affordable alongside what is desirable. and as you say, strategy should inform the defense decisions that we make area. >> i take the point you're making. in particular and that includes foreign policy to take them out the defense review. and we make investment in cybersecurity to spend more. >> and i just believe it is a proper strategic decision. >> there is one other issue that i wanted to raise because referred to it in our first report. and the national security itself is part of a economic activity. and we are hearing you talk about enhancing the influence and expanding the influence. and when you say expanding the main expanding across the world? >> if you look across projections and that is the foremost international development and defense and trade. i think that you can assume the person is actually doing more than we have been expanding our presence in india and china with every other nation. so there's no doubt in my mind that part of her strategy is that we want to link up with the fastest growing class in the world and being open and engaged power. and i would argue that even in the area of defense or the defense budget has come down in real terms, not a huge amount, but by a small amount. because we have made choices between drones in cyberand stability. i would argue that there is an a long-term reduction in person defense capabilities and our ability to stand up ourselves in important ways around the world. and i also reject the idea of how engaged you are and successful your and projecting influenced by how much money you spend. we've got to make sure that we get as much into this as we can of our defense and i would argue that it has been pretty successful. again, i don't really accept the idea because we are spending a little bit less on defense and we cannot be as gaffigan and the defense class. >> isn't it embarrassing that we are spending more of the winter fuel in a constantly on the foreign phone markets? >> we are spending the right amount on the foreign market. it is to see and expanding and global network as it were. traveling all over the world and trying to encourage investment and encourage exports and i we an amazing asset and i think that we have some brilliant diplomats and we have some fantastic teams around the world and the defense of the foreign office was well treated by the spending review and i think that we have more presence in india than any other and opening a new series of nations. >> it might be worth seeing this in the same light, roughly. when you talk about strategy, what you mean by strategy? two to me strategies about setting out a clear series of goals that you want to me and making sure that you have sensible means for achieving those goals. i'd have to look at this. it is to tie us to the world and refresh the grid alliances that we have to tackle the threats that could threaten our country right across government and every single bit of government working together. that is a strategy. and maybe i'm too much of a sort of practical chap. i think really want to try to use government to make sure you are implementing the strategy. another one is to determine politics and agree with actions and check out the we have done what we said we were going to do. so to me that is not misusing this and making it too much about implementation of the right use. and i find that people love sitting around talking about strategy beginning to do things and act and to complete the strategy is often a challenge. >> thank you. the next word is security. from having a healthy democracy with everything to be on track and it would be part of it. to talk about security? >> security is that you have to take a wide definition because our nations security relies upon having strong defenses that we can protect ourselves. but it also means considering every risk to our security from pandemic diseases and floods and new threats like bullpen of corruption and all of these things. what we try to do with national security secretary at his bring together in one place like this under the leadership the teams that do all of these things. so security in the end is the ability to protect your country and your people and your interest so they can grow and prosper and in delivering security you have to deal with every threat from the biggest to the most unlikely and the point of making sure we have all of this. >> it is a pretty standard definition with multinational companies. >> the heart of national security is restoring britain's economic strength and if you gain an acknowledged drink, many of the other things you're trying to do fall into place. if you lose it, you are in a much more delicate situation. at the heart of the national security, then if we can't properly raised taxes from businesses because technology has changed and they are not playing by the rules. that could be a threat to your security. >> i think what we have to do is have a hierarchy and we have a terrible list of acronyms with planning and assumptions. attempting to trying to delineate risks of security. >> could you give me an example of this and how people are thinking we ought to do this but backlashes with the strategy. which is a good idea at the moment. >> i think a good example is probably more about balancing the interest in their issues like this but we decide about visa rules and visa waivers for countries. the prosperity agenda would be a security agenda and make sure you're making the right decision. i think that in the past these are the decisions that were made by the home office and never the train show leave. we have talked about this on the table about well and important economic relations. frankly these are the restrictions that are getting in the way of the national security and we have a good good thing about it and we reach a decision you in terms of things that have been proposed total to the strategy chimes are going to think of one and these have a policy issue of which countries get visa preference in terms of this. >> thank you. >> mr. merkel? >> thank you, tara. would like to know a little bit more about how this works and operates. at the moment the committee has some ideas and agendas based on names of countries and afghanistan and other areas of northern ireland. it doesn't indicate that we are getting any secrets away, how operational or long-term work strategic discussions might be. my experience is that we report the committee and we have a talk about it. >> is a lot more than that. because what this does is brings the ministers and we don't really allow this in their place and it's very important to find one of the most important meetings of the whole week. with the heads of the intelligence agency and the chief of the defense staff is necessary with someone to do this with counterterrorism and you have the expert in the room as well as a politician and the form of the meetings is often a presentation rather than just a massive amount of paperwork and will often be given by leading foreign office officials to sit in front of the committee if the choices that we have to make. sometimes it is very operational and we want to have a proper look at the drawdown of plans that the ministry of defense has and is a committee we have to ask if that is the right aberrational plan for britain. and i think it is right but the government collectively decides these things and sometime tran-sevens we can be very strategic and we could have a discussion about relations of the emerging powers and it will be about how we best go about seeking relationships with and how do we improve them. sometimes it can be a meeting where it really helps to have a collective discussion bringing together money from defense and one of affairs sticking around the table and saying we have got this money and how are we going to spend a and should our investments in what should they be going into. because obviously it is important and i think it is important to discuss this collectively as we can see the links between what we're doing of the fragile states that we are trying to help fix with related decisions. >> sometimes it is very operational sometimes very strategic. sometimes generally making operational decisions that have an impact. >> in terms of the more strategic meetings that we could have, one thing we have noticed that sometimes they seemed to dry up and then they start again in october. what about having one or two of these extra more appropriately at things. at the same time they have sufficient outside expertise to give advice and knowledge and you think of that is just too much be part of the nfc? >> the nsc is serviced by the national security secretary at and you really feel that they are not a committee and has a proper team behind it that can operationalize decisions. and we have on occasion brought this out and occasionally had seminars that members would attend an order to here am those. we had a particularly good session about afghanistan want some experts came. we have a special with syria and we had a whole series of experts to address those issues as well. if the criticism is that urgent operational part of meetings to discuss this and tends to crowd out these discussions, i think i would probably plead guilty and i think that is inevitable when we have to talk about the most urgent thing and i would say that we have spent more time on the operational emergencies. thank you very much. >> we have talked about this greatly. >> thank you. i think it is important that the innovation of the national security council. allowing us to acknowledge this if they make a strategic decision that we usually practice that make the final decision. now we have this and can you think of an occasion when there has been a foreign policy defends decision where you have taken the ultimate decision rather than the secretary of state. >> i am not sure that david blair would say that it is occasionally intervening. i think the history is more of a bilateral thing between a prime minister and the defense secretary. i think the good thing is that it is a more collective way of making decisions made by individual ministers. but we make this decision with how we can talk about the decisions we made in libya and syria. they were not generally discussed around the table with the ministers and the expert advice and institutionalization of it to turn the tables and invest in his opinion on these things. they have come to a different decision than when they first walked into the room. >> we would like to ask questions on how this system actually works. so how did the national security strategy and how did you make the decisions? >> when we drew up the strategy and we didn't have perfect foresight about what we had in the events of the arab spring and we have been relatively consistent. and i don't really -- the strategy always have to be adaptable and has to be changeable according to circumstances. and so you have to make sure that you can adapt what you have. especially to protect its interests and promote british values like democracy especially taking serious ideas. >> what do you think it was about interior? >> and the arab spring has taken a general view that the advance of the building blocks of democracy is a good thing and there will always be bumps on the road and that is what we should have to be encouraging. >> what are we using for the use of force in all of us? use of force is weak with the issue of chemical weapons and i think that the debate ended up being a debate about what happened in the rock in what some people feared might happen in syria and it wasn't really a debate so much about chemical weapons and we talked about a top global response and syria decided to give up its chemical and britain has a very important part of this and we continue to ask for development and we are taking it as to how we look and it is a growing president here. coming back to this issue of chemical weapons presumably you have this goal in mind. what was it? was at regime change? >> the strategic goal with president obama before the debate in the house of congress is having set a red line on chemical weapons use we could not allow him to cross it with impunity. and the sort of military action was simply about chemical weapons. that it was important only in the context of syria but the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons has been of immense value to countries like britain in four decades. so it was worthwhile taking a strong stance on this issue because of the message you can then to other dictators around the world. without military action being taken, which is they do look at it and that is what it was about. it was not about regime change. it was purely to provide that issue. >> further questions? >> i think the further questions are about the implications of the country in combat and with its technique and someone. and is that part of the security council? >> has come all the way through our discussions about syria come i think that syria has been talking about a really difficult challenge and policies all over the western world. because nobody wants to get involved in conflicts. on the other hand everyone can see right from the start that this was a comp lit which was going to drive extremism and instability and huge problems in the region. every discussion we have had about her it was discussed with the dangers of bush people traveling to use syria and terrorist returning home in a link that it's extremely worrying on that front at the moment. and that is why we have been in the house of commons debating so we can take away from this the fact that people citizenships and securing the borders and working with allies to deal with the terrorist threat and people coming back and it's a very big focus. >> is that a decision from before? >> at something we have looked at in the security council and the decisions that were taken without specific measure. she has been empowered to of these issues. >> okay, this isn't just about me and the elements to that. but there are other issues where people might say that we put 600 of them in a year in counterterrorism efforts. with a single intelligence account. it we have people at a moment on flood defense with 60 million rising from last year. including how to allocate resources with the different risks and if so how do you reach the conclusion? >> that's a very good question. we will be habit which is a national risk assessment. as well as a national risk registry to try to assess these risks. we have discussed that and tried to make sure that we are dealing with risk in an appropriate way. and it's very difficult to try to measure up with the respective threats and there is not an exact science in it. but i would say these are all in a national security secretary and one part of them that are trying to measure all this up. >> you look at those resources? >> yes, we do. specifically in terms of intelligence. the budget comes in front of the nfc and we continue to see that it is a good moment for the politicians to act as to how we got the balance right between the counterterrorism and please and the question you're asking is do you measure up the chance of terrorism on one hand to the other. there are all risks that are registered as a science or you can try to talk about the exact amount of money and place. >> you're bringing it together and you are looking at your potential weaknesses and you're trying to make sure that you are correctly identifying the gaps. >> we have a subcommittee in the context of the assessment and we have specific subcommittee that looks at hazards, both flooding has been dealt with through this and i think it is a missed to configure dns me is entirely strategic and cobra is entirely operational. i do use cobra to address issues where you need this slightly wider than the national security council. and do you have that process a long-term plan for the impact of climate change? and have you considered this part of the infrastructure with rising sea levels? >> yes, we have. then we have this about climate change and we need to have another meeting before the next party is needed. but we also have a piece of work that has been done on critical infrastructure from floods and rising sea levels and that has been considered. >> the critical of the structure works by the nss and it's very productive as well. >> coming back to something you mentioned the boy about the reorganization of the ministry of defense. mentioning the future of 2020, for example with the structure of the reserve including the national security council. you have a right to be concerned about that? >> i never want to criticize this. i think the national security council to discuss the structure before the announcement was ready. i don't want to give you the impression this is outside. singapore by the secretary of state for defense? >> right, and i think that was very much done by the nmc in a piece that we sorted out later with the overall structure. i'm right in saying that the reserve work was commissioned by the nfc and then the result of that in the future structure that was discussed before was part of it. am i right? >> that's good to know. >> if you're saying that you should have done the whole thing, that honestly would have been sometimes taking a few innovations to get exactly right. >> thank you. this puts it into perception. amongst the people indicate what we have here is incident which you outlined in which we would all agree with. so who is actually responsible for engaging the public so that it is not just a knee-jerk reaction to the latest problem and that when someone challenges as you are able to talk about the debate even in the house. so who in government is responsible for getting that kind of message? >> builder by having a national security council people can see that these are forcing us to try to explain how we have looked at risks and what we are trying to do to keep this country safe. i think that science is probably held by informing the debate about risk and probabilities. and i think that that was how we are looking at a strategy and have you got enough consideration of this and how we look at these risks. so i think in the end the scientist can help by explaining some of the problems and that is probably the best you can do. and i think that people want to do everything possible to protect dwellings from flooding in that we have an investment program and all the rest of it. i think that people understand that there is severe weather events that can affect your country do everything you can to mitigate. but in the end there are these appalling terrorist demands which can be so indiscriminate with such huge risks. including doing everything possible in the first place. >> you think of the recent problems we have seen about the edwards noted in revelations and the way in which they have been talked about by some people actually undermine public confidence due to agency? and if so, who is responsible for defending the agency? including some of these different decisions. >> i think first of all in response to edwards noted, what we have to do is make sure that we are confident that the government procedures are robust and this includes intelligent security committees and things that happen under the law and i keep asking myself and what i think we have without trying to improve it. including hasn't dented public confidence and i haven't seen this in the opinion program. but my sense is that the public reaction as opposed to some of the media reaction is that it is in a dangerous world and we should support these intelligence services in the and the work that they do. and i think that the public reaction has been pretty robust. including defending and explaining what they do and i have a responsibility and i feel that i'm responsible i am responsible to stand up for them and thank them publicly and to try to explain what we do and i'm done with some of that. i think that they are often best spokespeople for themselves and what they have recently talked about. i think that the speech in the head of this has helped us to face the threats. so i don't want to make a speech every week trade but i think actually they can help set the agenda and explain what they do better than anyone. >> you think that there is a potential danger that lacks public support for the government that might see this as essential and might be undermined as best as they can? with what can be needed and the donations and shouldn't that be part of your planning that you are actually talking about not just about the economics but explaining it in this way? >> that's a very fair point. if you're saying to the prime minister on secretary is responsible for this bunch of should the three of us do want to explain and defend and give people a sense of why this work is important, yet am i think we should do that. if we are worried about damage, and i would encourage the newspapers to galleon this and think before they act because we are in danger of them having less faith of his a result. but i think the public reaction has not been one of shock and horror but one that has been part of intelligence agencies. >> thank you. is there anything the think the nfc has missed? >> i think that there are some pacific subject with a technical nature that organizations like yours and others have talked about. and i think that that has been useful to give the politicians the ability to challenge this. have you got this in not covered. and i think that we need to go faster with this work with examining the plans, whether it is a conflict of can we do more make this organization really drive policy rather than just strategy and i think we should probably do more on that. in terms of missing this, there's a lot of things that the pundits and experts have not foreseen. and it has been a development of global affairs and that is why you have to have a strategy that recognizes the need to adapt to changing circumstances. >> one thing that we commented on early on that we missed in the original because we about to go onto the next one, with was a question of the americans announcing this with enormous strategic consequences. that was not touched on at all in this particular situation. >> when was the president obama speech. was was it 2010 or 2011? well, if you look at the amount of foreign office activity in southeast asia and the countries that i mentioned, what we are doing in china or india, there is a real evidence to focus this on the high-growth emerging powers and all the rest of it. and there's a whole set of countries and we have such a strong relation based upon defense relations we should really try to build on those relationships. so i think that we are doing our own thing and i think what we did in terms of moving us away and towards the future technologies and the rest of it, initially push it we had done more and faster and i suppose this includes the foreign policies as well and i think that the prosperity and trade agenda, which is now being driven very hard across government. i would've liked to have done even more even sooner because i think that it is going to be part of our future national success if we can increase this and link up this with the countries and that is a big part of the future success story. and so getting the tanker to move, i wish that i had pushed it harder and faster. >> thank you. i'm going now to the next area of preparation. >> he told us it would take two years to prepare this in the work on this -- can you tell us what it will be ready? >> it is part of the beginning of both nationalist purity and bsr. because we need to stop clamoring now. and you could argue forever about how long this will take. but i'm so keen on implementing that put more weight on that. maybe you move faster on the people that are trying to deliver what we need it to stop writing strategies and. >> we need to be fundamentally different and he won't be the finish until the next government is in place. >> what we call vote. >> certainly. >> i think that is right. and we should be starting now. i think we need to refresh. i don't think it's going to be a complete overhaul. if i'm responsible for the outcome i think it will have that trade and prosperity agenda more strongly at heart. but i wouldn't expect a huge change and for instance a very difficult decision in this capacity is exciting. and we will have this in the high seas pretty soon. and people in it. >> tummy some of the specifics and what about the european union, which was they will be a member of the european union and it's absolutely essential to most of our strategic decisions. specifically how will change we cease to be a member of the european union. >> my strategy is we didn't that we secured for britain a reform in the european union in a referendum and i want to recommend that we should remain a partner of reform and i plan this on the basis. we haven't dealt with some of the european issues on the council or government and i expect this has important implications on the basis of what we want to achieve. >> when people go to vote the other way, there are strategic implications and so the government has admitted this out in this case. we do not do the same thing for the european union? >> and i think once it is it is part of the referendum were the part of this has decided about this. my judgment is if we use this to discuss the issues we are talking about a second reading debate and the actions necessary to deliver it. >> we have heard in the past but essentially we are about three days away and we found that out. do you believe you have addressed enough about how some disruption could lead to this and is that something that is until to this strategy creating food shortages with a very short space of time? >> what we have done is we have threats to food supplies. you get a 2013 review of emergency planning and the security assessment 2010 as well. so it is critical with national infrastructure plans that we have heard and you are definitely right that those that incorporate this and all the rest of it. whether volcanic ash or what have you does impact those rather quickly. but i'm satisfied that we have examined these issues when the infrastructure is threatened. >> prime minister, there was a sense of how government priority to introduce the program to preserve the security intelligence and law-enforcement agency to have access required and ends with changes to the existing legislation that would require the ability. i understand that it could be part of our legislation and i wondered edwards noted in the leaked material if there is anything you could share with us about the position in the united kingdom. >> first welcome i agree with the reported that over time we are going to have to modernize the framework in practice when it comes to mutations data. it is obviously a contentious topic and i am not sure that we will make progress on it in the coming months in terms of the legislation and i think that politicians and police chiefs and intelligence services have a role in explaining what this is all about. and i wouldn't go back to what i said earlier. and it inevitably raises questions about who has access to the data and why. but i'm absolutely convinced that proper rules for communications data is essential and i don't think we've got across to people yet the basis of the. which is most of the serious crimes like child abductions and where was the telephone at the time. but the communications data is absolutely vital and i think that we need the police chiefs explaining what this is about. occluding there is hardly a crime drama without using the data of mobile communications devices. the problem that we have to explain to people is that as you move from the world of people having this skype and phones and the internet and all of that, if we do not modernize the practice and the law, over time we will have the mutations data on a shrinking proportion on the total use of devices. and that is a real problem for keeping people safe. but we have to make this explanation very cleanly really have to get it out to people and perhaps a case that is sensible to deal with this issue and i think it is possible that it will take a lot of work by politicians to try to take that civil liberties concern seriously as we can make some progress. >> thank you, prime minister. i think we would all agree with that. and i take perhaps it is something to get it over to what you said over to the general public. >> the best attempt i've seen so far is one or two police chiefs that road and when they explained how much people are involved in child abduction cases and solving murders and serious crimes, in my work with security services and how vital it is to prevent terrorist attacks, i feel passionate because until the first responsibility of my job is to help keep people safe and i think the fact of using so much crime is a very straightforward understandable thing. >> thank you. i wanted to give up something of to understand foreign investment and so on. sue has the nsc been a part of her critical infrastructure and i'm thinking of energy and water and so on. but it's reason to be concerned about whether or not there should be some red lines drawn about ownership. >> we do have a proper system in place for examining the investments in our national interest. and we are actually discussing earlier that there is a proper nsc consideration because we have slightly different procedures with some slightly different parts of our infrastructure and it's good to have a proper discussion when it comes to networks and what have you that we have all the was that we need in place. we will do that. and when we have had a specific issue like a faraway issue that we have properly examined and responded to the report. i would not play the fact that britain is saying to we welcome the investment. and in two key parts of the of the structure. ..and railways and other things. and it also makes an enormous -- it's a very good message for britain going around the world. we are not embarrassed but delighted that indian capital is rebuilding the british car industry. we're delighted that the chinese are going to own part of water, investing in heathrow. i think it's one of our calling cards that we are an open economy that encourages people to invest. so, yes, by all means, let's check if there were security issues we could act properly and appropriately and we will do, but don't lose the position as a great open economy. i was very struck by one of the large chinese investors, britain is better than all. i thought that was a good endorsement. >> thank you. >> prime minister, i think when you're saying you wish you could spend more time and effort on asia, some had a history >> you could even spend more time and efforts with the commonwealth over to -- to render 300 years that why this would work but mr. gates made a comment could i put this to you cover it in support to of our security interest going now part of a crucialssar relationship of the united states navy we must guarantee we have hired capability to the necessary number. you stated, the prime minister, 21st of jittery jittery, to 30 year fixed budgets required middle term growth of the years through 2015. it is a concern is a very rich your view of the intentions? and what that should mean for the future at all. where i take issue slightly with former secretary gates is i think actually if you look at the equipment program for our navy, it is absolutely a full spectrum equipment program. you have the two carriers under construction. you have the type 45 destroyers coming into action. you got the future frigate program that is there. you have the hunter-killer submarines. you have the trident submarines and the pledge to renew them and the immense ability the royal marines. in terms of the navy it has a very bright future and it is a full spectrum capability from, you know, the nuclear deterrent at one end to, you know, smaller vessels right at the other end. so i don't accept that we are, you know, shrinking the navy or it's not a full spectrum capability. it absolutely is. as for what you say about asia, i completely agree. we've seen a big increase in our experts to china, for instance, but we're still only 1% of chinese exports. we can, you know, quite easily get to 2% which will be great for us without being a huge change. >> prime minister, there are some who would suggest having more at 26 frigates to meet the very ambitions you have been talking about today will be more than useful. >> i have this debate with the navy all the time. because clearly what's been happening is that we are having fewer, more expensive ships, type 45's, you know, are pretty close to a billion pounds each. they are phenomenally expensive. they are the most modern, most effective. one of our type 45s that's doing more at the moment. i think it's getting quite a lot of attention. there is obviously a discussion we should have, is there a role for other sorts of vessels we should be using as well and what's the tradeoffs between these multipurpose ships that can do everything from drug interdiction in the caribbean right through carrier escorts or complex warfare, is it right to do that or should you try to have more ships that are carrying out more different tasks? and i think it's a debate that will continue. up until now the answer is let's have the multirole ships that can do everything. >> let me switch a subject and that's the role of the n.s.c. and that's energy and energy policy. there are two aspects of it. you have the shorter term policy and the longer term policy. am i right in saying that the only real security strategy is the department of energy and climate change document which obviously leaves out foreign policy, planning and range of other issues and frankly looking 50 or 100 years ahead as to what we should be considering, is that something that almost at the top of the agenda in the years to come on long term? i'll come back to short term in a moment. >> clearly energy security is vital. we were talking earlier about how do you define security? clearly energy security, the ability to power your economy, to power your homes and businesses, that's the key aspect of security and it is something taken seriously by the national security council. we have discussed it and taken papers on it. i would argue that we have a good strategy there. we are renewing our nucelar and we will follow next. we set out a very clear strategy so everyone knows what the rules and the costs are for investing in renewables. and we're moving ahead, not just with new gas plants as appropriate but also with onshore shale gas which i think could be a major industry for britain in the future. so i think we got a long-term plan. and we've got to make sure that every piece of that is put in place. >> and i think our position does put us -- being reliant on so much. >> i think if you look at our energy penetration of imports compared with other countries, because of the north sea, we had a relatively good record. we got the interconnector with france. a potential interconnector with norway. if we make the most of shale gas, then as north sea gas runs down we'll have a new national resource. so when i look at our position in europe and look at, you know, how reliant we are on imports, i'm -- i think we're relatively secure position. we must keep up. that's why the relationship with gasa and others in terms of imported gas, the relationship with norway is fantastically important. making sure we get a decent contribution for renewables. and making this program work. >> could i bring up the other thing that is a really serious problem? we believe our country is facing potentially a very serious crisis of supply and competitiveness at this very moment in time we speak. and are you prepared to set aside the targets in the 2008 climate change act in order to get through this period? if you're unable to act unilaterally, will you seek consensus with the major countries on behalf of the commitments? prime minister, what i ask with that is, do you accept now in retrospect these targets, those set by the former government but were endorsed by you, were a huge mistake that threatens the severely damaged and indeed our already damaging europe competitive and growth prospect in years to come? >> prime minister, this view that he expressed may not be shared by -- >> of course. two questions in there. one is the climate change act framework, can that work for us in the long term? my answer is yes, it can. we set these budgets. we have to make sure they're achievable and deliverable. i supported the climate change act and i think we can make it work. the second part i think about the european targets which i think we are capable of meeting, i think you go back over the history and argue whether it was right to have as many specific targets, you might come to a different answer. europe is reviewing -- the e.u. is reviewing this at the moment about whether the specific targets are correct. but look, the question i ask and i got the energy industries, the national grid and everybody else around the table, i checked that our situation was robust, is are we content with the rules we have in place and everything we have in place that we are energy secure in terms of our short, medium and long-term future or are there any changes we need to make about decommissioning coal plants, bringing on gas more quickly or anything else and the answer i got was that the rules and regulations and capacity mechanisms are in place so we have the energy security that we need. so the question you put is very important. but i don't think either the climate change act or our own situation is one that we ought to be concerned with but one that i think we need to make major change. >> [inaudible] this is just not my view. it's head of the international energy agency based in paris and in london here today, we were discussing only the subject of deep, deep critical concern about europe's competitiveness. >> the european union -- they'll debate at the march council. they'll think very carefully about international competitiveness and prices. the united states has 10,000 shale gas wells. in europe we got about 100. and so i think we do need to think about the competitiveness picture. i completely agree with that. i don't think throwing out the window the concern about carbon emission reduction. what is the market in europe, that would be a very good thing. make sure we make use of shale gas. we are committed to cheap green energy and keep driving down the price of these new technologies. if we do all those things we can be green and competitive. >> we are almost out of time. i just want to take you back for a moment. to something you said about the maritime -- about the navy. i am reminded about what was said recently, unless we change our current course, not enough people. to staff it. he said the royal navy was close to its critical mass. and i applaud what you said about the navy. >> well, i think -- to be fair, what was said, if spending reductions went further, there would be a danger of what was called hollowing out. if we were in danger of that happening with what we have. the point i would make is that in the sdsr we made decisions with the chiefs of the defense staff around the table that we're about the future capabilities of the u.k. and a very strong argument was made, which i completely agree with, that we need to have a navy that is full spectrum, that's got everything from those submarines, the type 45's, to the future frigates and everything else. and that was a real priority. we've taken this gap in capability, which we'll refresh with the new carriers, and that's incredibly important. i don't see -- obviously want to do everything we can on value for money, on efficiency. i think if we do that i don't see any reason why we won't be able to properly run and crew these excellent assets. and also i think it's encouraging people to join the navy. the opportunities when you got this absolutely world first- class equipment that's running out of our ship-yards at the moment, it is terrific to encourage people to join up. >> can i applaud what you just said about the gap being replaced by new carriers? [laughter] >> you have about two minutes. >> [inaudible] going back to the earlier question, in a public meeting, if the secretaries get their way and break scotland up from the kingdom, what are the national security implications of that? i think you stated publicly some of those implications but i wonder if you could elaborate a little bit more. >> in a nutshell, we are more secure together as well as more prosperous and all the rest of it. scotland makes an enormous contribution to the u.k.'s defense. i will be making a speech soon which is it's very important everyone in the rest of the united kingdom emphasizes how much we benefit of scotland staying in the united kingdom and that's something i feel passionate about. >> we're grateful, prime minister. and i think we got through most of the things we wanted to get through. i think you would have gathered that we are very anxious about the national security strategy, anxious that the next one will be better. one point we have made repeatedly is how much we would like to see it drawn outside experts and other views. without any disrespect to the people we have. and a couple of times it's been suggested that the government might consult this committee and we very much hope that it will and we will do our best to be cooperative and helpful. >> thank you. we are keen to hear the views of others. in the end, the government has got to own this document. so it's got to reflect our collective view. but the more input and also identifying gaps and weaknesses that your committee does frankly the better. >> very kind of you. thank you very much indeed. order, order. the meeting is now adjourned. >> i was in a car wreck that i wrote about extensively in the the whole time by of was in the hospital i had a broken ankle i was praying the other person in the car would be okay. via the person in the car was one of my best friends. i did not know that. i did not recognize that at the site of the crash but as i prayed over and over in and he wasn't. i thought god was not listening. for a long time i did not believe that prayers could be answered. it took me along time to come back to face. emergency and natural -- energy -- reces >> the senate committee on energy and natural resources will come to order m. we will have a very busy morning today but i will start with a particularly exciting news. senator lay andrew will be having her first grandchild in a few hours she has been up most of the night. [applause] i'm not sure but have been conscious this morning but her and her energy is with us and we are glad that she is ed to -- wanted -- to have this hearing because there is talk on whether extruding crude oil is in the natural interest of the people. i think it is fair to say this isn't going to be revolved over the next couple weeks. there is a lot of interest in this subject and that is why we are holding the hearing. i believe deeply in expanded trade. 1-6 jobs depends on international trade in my state and trade jobs play better on the non-trade jobs because they reflect a higher level of productivity which is often required. i am asked to summarize my economic views, and i often say a goal is to help things grow, build and have revenue in america and then ship them somewhere. that is why today's debate is especially important. the fact is energy is not the same thing as blueberries. accordingly it is treated differently under federal law. the energy policy and conversation act allows for the export of crude oil only when doing so is in the natural interest. there is not that requirement for blueberries or other things. national security is involved when we talk about exporting energy. there are several armed conflicts around the world that are being inflamed by fights to control oil. now, i will put blueberries up against anything, but the last time i looked no one is fighting a war over them. it is hard to believe that only a few years after campaigns, being dominated by slogans like drill, baby drill we have having the talks on excrudeing oil. now, our country is in the enviable position about having choices about the energy future. how can the boom create the greatest effort for america? can energy help create jobs? of course. can it ease the pain at the pump? of course. can we reduce the dependence on fuel from countries that don't have our best interest in mind? of course. those are the easy questions. the harder question is how can you come up with policy with america can have it all? can we get the domestic benefits from export and retain a cost advantage for domestic consumers? that is my goal. but in an effort to keep the hearing under seven or eight hours we will have to have a focus. i want it understood for this hearing i have a particular interest in focusing on the consumer. in any energy debate it is never hard to find a voice for the various regions, industries and points of view in america. consumers often don't have one however. the number of voices want to export oil. i want to hammer home the point this morning is for me the litmus test is how middle class families will be effected by changing the country's policy on oil exports. it isn't enough to say an algorithm determines this. american families and many businesses deserve to know what exports mean for their specific needs when they fill up at the pump. charging forward and hoping for the best isn't the best way to get the policy decisions. responsibility of the committee and we have worked on the issue in a bipartisan way is to make sure consumers don't get hammered by the price of gas going up. i will wrap-up by saying there are important issues with respect to timing. there maybe a time when crude oil exports are appropriate. one of the questions we will have to explore is whether that time is now. when a conversation has begun on exporting crude oil, i am not hearing a similar conversation on ending imports. our country is importing about 40% of the crude oil including from those places that don't have our best interest in mind. every member of this committee understands the global commodity debate. a global price doesn't automatically mean a stable price. if oil stops flowing from saudi arabia american consumers and businesses would feel it in a hurry. does real energy security mean being energy independent even if we never do it? i think most americans would think the government would chose not to import the oil if given the option. we will listen to the arguments pro/con and i need to hear more. i will not be making judgments today and i look forward to working with all of the colleagues so that our country can maximize what i think we all would say is a historic set of circumstances that we want to think through carefully about how to tap the potential of. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i appreciate you considered remarks and the opportunity to bring up the issue before the committee. as you, and i, have noted over the past year we have not shown any interest in taking up the difficult issues when it comes to energy or energy production and export whether it is natural gas or oil. this is what people expect us to do: take up the hard issues and have considered debate and dialogue and where and when appropriate to act on that. my hope is that today's discussion is the beginning of many very considered and thoughtful discussions on what is a very timely issue given the position that the country is in when it comes to our dramatically increased oil production. i appreciate the opportunity to discuss this today. i would note that it has generated a fair amount of discussion. we have not seen a full hearing room in a while. we have good representation on the committee so i am pleased to see that. mr. chairman, you will recall that you and i were speaking together at the center for strategic and international studies on unconventional gas production this time last year. during the q&a during the presentation, an attendee asked about the ban on crude oil and you answered the question in a thoughtful manner. my response was isn't it amazing you are able to ask the question and not be laughed out of the room. a year prior to that it would not have been possible to have the discussion. so where we have come in just a year in recognizing, again, that as a nation when it comes to energy production on several different fronts, the landscape has changed dramatically and thanks to my colleague at the end here, what we are seeing coming from north dakota has changed dynamic. it has helped with our jobs and our opportunities. but it isn't just north dakota, it is in texas and california. we are not seeing it in alaska unfortunately and we will not see the opportunity for exploreation this year. shell is not moving forward because of the decision by the 9th circuit. very troubling to me. let me get back to where i think we will take the conversation this morning. just a couple weeks ago, i addressed the brookings institution and presented a white paper on the energy trade and called for ending the prohibition on crude. i will tell you i have been gratified by the thoughtful responses. it hasn't been a knee jerk we cannot do it, the sky is falling. it is much more considered and thoughtful and i think that is where we need to be with these discussions. i want to prompt further discussion and debate on the issue. the analytical and trade winds are blowing. the architecture of u.s. energy exports must be renovated if we are going to lead the world on issue of trade, environment and energy. the highest profile fact is the de-facto prohibition on crude oil. it threatens record-breaking oil production by creating gluts and distortions. it is my hope and expectation that the hearing continues all of the issues considering all sides and reaching conclusions so we can move forward rather than let the global energy markets pass us by around the world. having said that, i don't expect that we are going to either see the administration moving forward with a discussion next week or legislation coming forward from me or other members of the energy committee here. what i am hoping is that we can advance this discussion so that it is clearly understood that from the consumers experience why exports make sense. timing is key here. i believe opening up world markets to crude oil will lower the global prices. the american consumers will benefit from this action. go-political impact is important here. the on-going talks with asia is just being understood. we cannot let short-term thinking distract us from the long hall. gasoline prices will go up and down, there is going to be variations across different regions of the united states. this is do to variables like infrastructure and differing tax structures and other aspects of the distribution system. regional variations are ultimately variations on global prices. lifting the ban is about production and jobs. the international energy agency, iea, has warned that maintaining the man might result in shut-in production which would be against the livelihood. so many things to chew on and kerry forward in discussions. we have a panel in front of us and i think mr. chairman is knowledgeable and poised to speak to the issues. i think we will gain from their input this morning and i thank them for being here and thank you for allowing us to have this opportunity. >> thank you for a thoughtful statement. without the committee being hit by one of those political facts, i am told this is the first hearing in the congress in 20 years on this topic. given the fact we have more than 10% of the senate here, a number of senators want to make short statements. franken did. >> i didn't want to interrupt the ranking member, but when she was talking about where we came in oil production and thanked my colleague from north dakota, i wanted to point out while as governor he did all kinds of things to make sure it was developed there, he didn't discover the oil there. and i want to point that out but if you would please discover some oil in minnesota, it would be most welcome. >> you need to talk to our guest herald hamm. let me go back and forth. is there someone that would like to make a comment? is there a colleague on the other side who wants a minute or two? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to welcome herald hamm. and senator franken isn't too far off, he didn't discover the oil, but discovered the methods and developing them in a way that made oil recovery in billions of barrels. it is leading an energy renaissance. so i am pleased to welcome and introduce herald hamm. >> i enjoyed my visit to north dakota as well. >> i think we have a great panel and i want to thank you for a thoughtful opening statement. i will submit my statement for the record, but i want to say we are witnesses an energy revolution in the country today producing more energy at home here than we have in decade and translating that into numbers, the eia predicts 8.5 million barrels a day in production, is 1 million more than in 2013 and very near the record of 9.6 million barrels last achieved in 1970. that is why we are having the hearing and i think the testimony mr. hamm will show us that this will expand and the production companies and also the landowners and the oil supply and gas suppliers and also the general manufactures that make products unrelated to gas and oil but employ americans. and they are experiencing the excitement about supply and stable and reasonable prices. i will put the rest of my statement in the record. for the refineries, we do need to get on the record what the refineries are positioned to process today and the kind of crude that is being produced. and the miss match that is there. we have to be very aware and sensitive of the investments that have been made by the refineries. i think we are going to hear some of that today. i am looking forward to the testimony particularly the users of it like delta airlines that use a tremendous amount of fuel. thank you, mr. chairman. >> let's go to the other side. anyone on the other side who wants to make a brief comment? senator mansion was interested. >> i want to thank both of you for holding this historic hearing today. i just can't help but think that where we are today and we are thinking about this, which would have never had this a year or five years ago, it really speaks of the innovations and changes you have made. the l and g exports that we were going to import a couple years ago comes to mind. and senator, you said that sweet spot and i can only think about 100-150 years ago what the coal industry did for us coming from west virginia gave us the life we have today. and what people are still depending on our state. where we would be if we had sent that product out of the market place. there is a balance to be had and i think we are able to find that. i will introduce my statement for the record. i am interested in this topic and discussion for us and the children and grandchildren and the security of the nation. >> thank you. senator barrasso. >> i read a book called "break out" and it is about pioneers of the future. it goes into the battle that is going to decide america's fate and a lot has to do with energy resources, availability and production and the technology making it possible. so thank you for this and bringing this together. >> senator cantwell. >> thank you for the statement. there are two issues i would like to discuss and those are safety and price. i don't know if they will be discussed today. i am not saying you cannot have oil transported safely but we had a huge fire and a report is being released about the death and what happened from that. and we have had incidences of oil now if you think of the north dakota and the export opportunities on rail and what are the safety issues. that is an important issues to me. and secondly the issue of price. i believe it is global market and global price. i definitely think we could do more to police the markets to make sure manipulation isn't effected. that is more about the banking figures and how many people have their fingers in the oil pot when they are not taking the end user. the price issue in the pacific northwest given the world market and being isolated, we have had some of the highest gas prices in the nation. when the congressional research gave an estimate on exports, it is saying that consumers could pay 5-10 cent more if '75 we ha discussion but now we do because of the fracking and such. l and g exports issue was more controversy than it is now. we found ourselves in a situation it looks like we can afford to export and help the manufactures in places like iowa achieve what is happening. it is as a revolution but it is more important as to the impact on jobs where manufactures are coming back and adding jobs because they are seeing there is a long term and stable price. on the issue of oil i would like to hear if the price at the pump is determined through there global market. we hear that what happens at the pump in ohio and around the country is affected by the global market place. and when there is an issue overseas of no disruption but the potential the prices go up. so we would like to hear more about that. and since senator talked about the sweet spot, i would love to hear what could be done in terms of a swap specifically with mexico that has been suggested where we would export light sweet crude for heavy crude. so it might not lift the wholesale export ban, but might enhance or competitiveness and have the right balance of emergency resources in the context of the revolution that put us in the field across the board. >> we are going on a long time so i will try to be brief. >> it has been 25 years. >> that is a good point. there is a lot of bottled up ideas. >> there are. >> i want to remind my colleagues that one of the reasons we are having this conversation and why the market is changing is because of this technology that has been developed. as you said, horizontal drilling and fractureing and much of the research came from the national laboratories and after several years of declining budgets, i think it is important to realize that things we consider mature and industries have been around for long time can be changed by our investments and research. we need to continue to make sure we don't loose sight of that. >> very good. other colleagues? senator scott. >> i would feel left out if i didn't say something. >> not on our watch you wouldn't be left out. >> thank you. having the opportunity to go to midland texas and see the results and impact of hydraulic fracking and horizontal drilling it is remarking where we find outselves. especially when you look back at people saying we were going to plateau and the end was coming soon. but yourself and mitchell invested resources to get us into a country where we should have a larger conversation about the impact of those export opportunities on national security. as we become more aggressive with the oil production and exporting hopefully, it puts our middle east competitors to look at their own budgets and revenue. our's is positive, but it does more for national security than we articulated. >> senator baldwin. >> i wanted to talk about the context in which i am going to listen to the testimony and think about the input. i mentioned it at our hearing recently. this winter in wisconsin, families and business owners have had one issue on their minds and that is the cost and availability of propane. it is an especially cold winter in wisconsin. for many people who relied on a steady propane fuel, they are unable to find fuel to fill the tanks and regional suppliers have been depleted. it is over $6 per gallon now and risen that much in three weeks. this is devastating and very frightening for people across the state. i am hopefully the committee will take a close look at how we can solve this problem and figure out how we can prevent it from ever happening again. but in addition to tight supplies, we have witnessed a dramatic increase in propane exports. midwestern supplies were dwindling but the export industry tripled. this crisis should give us pause and inform the larger discussion about another fuel that is critical to our economy. consumer supply protection is a part of any serious debate. and let me add another issue as i don't know if i will get to stay long enough to ask questions. one of the major causes of the propane shortages is a result of infrastructure changes. pipelines are being repurposed to serve new oil fields. as oil production increases, the infrastructures will only increase. so part of what context i will be viewing the discussion, and again chairman and ranking member, i appreciate being able to hear the testimony. >> i think we are ready to go the witnesses and guest. let's go forward then. mr. hamm is here. graham bernett and amy meyers jaffe is here as well. and daniel weiss, the senior fellow and director of climate at the center for american progress. we welcome all of you and will make your statements part of the record. there is great interest among the senators. mr. hamm go ahead. [turning mike on] >>good morning. chairman wyden, ranking member murkowski and members of the committee: thank you for inviting me to testify before you today. in october 2011, depa put a stake in the ground and predicted american energy independence by 2020.1 america's independent oil and gas producers have unlocked the technology and resources that make this a reality. as a result, we can today mark the recent 40th anniversary of the opec oil embargo by ending the era of oil scarcity in america and, along with it, ending the last of shortsighted regulations passed during that period. the federal laws passed in the 1970s artificially controlled the supply, demand, and price of u.s. energy and brought about unintended consequences. for example, one law even banned the use of natural gas as a boiler fuel and mandated u.s. power plants switch to a less environmentally friendly alternative, coal. today america is still struggling to rectify the aftermath of this rash regulation. in the years since the enactment of these laws, our elected officials have recognized our global energy industry has changed dramatically. >> week develop we can -- america now counts the natural gas supply in centuries and experts agree we will be energy independent within the decades. this was missed by the general c concensus. has to be asked, "why does the united states, a nation historically very supportive of free trade, continue to impose export barriers for domestic crude oil?" the fact is the supply and demand factors and "scarcity mentality" that originally led to the creation of these export restrictions in no way reflect the economic reality of the global energy marketplace of today. we are entering a new era of energy abundance in america and the world. heretofore, we have only been able to extract hydrocarbons from reservoir-quality rock, primarily through vertical wells. but through technological breakthroughs in precision horizontal drilling, we can develop resources previously thought to be unattainable. america now counts our natural gas supply in centuries, and experts including raymond james,3 citi4 and the international energy agency5 all agree we will be energy independent in terms of crude oil within a decade or two. in deed crude oil is no different than any other commodity. over the past 18 months, gas and diesel fuelss have been reduced by 18% due horizontal drilling. a release yesterday by the report by icf international states the cost can be reduced another $6.6 billion if the export ban is removed. the economy impact reaches far beyond consumer. it is adding jobs for millions of america and helping the chemical factories grow. we have seen in cuba and other areas >>good morning. chairman wyden, ranking member murkowski and members of the committee: thank you for inviting me to testify before you today. my name is graeme burnett. i am the senior vice president for fuel optimization at delta air lines. in this position i manage delta' s jet fuel supply as well as serve as chairman of the board of monroe energy,the company that owns and operates delta's refinery in trainer, pennsylvania. i have over 30 years experience in the petrochemical and refining sectors of the energy industry and, before coming to delta, i worked in various capacities in texas and across the globe for one of the top five oil companies. delta air lines is the largest non-military user of jet fuel in the world and, like all airlines, we participate in oil markets on a daily basis. jet fuel after all is our largest expense. it contributes to the price of an airplane ticket, influences the types of aircraft we purchase, and helps determine whether we serve certain routes. because of all this, we are uniquely situated - both as an end user of crude oil and as a refiner - to comment on the crude oil export ban and the current debate over whether
specific future things? in particular, we talked about the pivot for america. what about the european union? which we will not know in the next strategy whether the u.k. will be part of the european union on or not. so will that be spelled out, the implications being in or out and specifically, how it will change if the u.k. ceases to be a member of the european union? >> my strategy linked in with the national security strategy is that we secure a referendum and i want to recommend that we should remain part of a reformed european union and i plan on the basis of success rather than the basis of anything else. but we don't -- european issues, we haven't dealt within the national security council. we dealt with them elsewhere in government. i accept it has important implications to the u.k. i think we should plan on the basis of what we want to achieve. >> yes. it's a democratic vote. if people are going to vote the other way, despite your recommendation, it has strategic implications. i mean, we have a vote this year on scottish independence and the government produced a series of papers setting out their case where the u.k. is better together. will you not do the same thing for the european union? >> well, we have done with the review looked at the various areas. i think once the negotiation is complete, there will then be a period before a referendum where the two sides in that debate can set out their arguments. i -- as you know, we are in a coalition government. the coalition partners have slightly different views about europe. my judgement is if we use the n.s.c. to debate and discuss europe issues, we would have a second reading debate. what i want is the actions necessary to deliver it. i think it's better to keep europe out of it. >> well, another specific issue and i'll be quick about this one. we heard in the past that our food security and essentially we are about three days away from a food crisis. most of our food is in transit. we found that out with the truck driver strike. do you believe you have addressed enough about how some disruption of communications could lead to a food crisis and how have you responded? is that something that's central to the security strategy? because clearly food shortages could move the country to a crisis in the span of a short period of time? >> what we have done is handling the threats to food supplies, one did a review of emergency planning. it concluded there was relatively good resilience in the u.k. food supply chain. and carried out the assessment in 2010. it's part of the national critical infrastructure plan that we have. you're definitely right. as a country that imports food, that has a lot of just in time delivery and all the rest of it, dislocation, whether volcanic ash from iceland or truck driver strike or what have you does impact those things relatively quickly. i'm satisfied that we have examined the issues, but that's not to say, you know, you don't get effects when infrastructure is threatened. >> prime minister, in the annual report on n.s.s. and the sdsr published last december, there was a paragraph which started with the sentence -- it has been a government priority to introduce the program to preserve the ability of the security intelligence and law enforcement agencies to have the access they require in communications. it goes on and ends with, changes to the existing legislative stream work may be required to maintain these vital capabilities. and i understand that the interceptions commissioner is reviewing our legislation. and will no doubt report to you. edward snowden's leaked material, is there anything you could share with us today to comment about the position of the united kingdom in the light of what was said in this report? >> well, first of all, i'd agree with the report that over time we are going to have to modernize the legislative framework and practice when it comes to dealing with communications data. it's obviously a politically quite contentious topic. i'm not sure that we'll make progress on it in the coming months in terms of legislation. there may be things short of legislation that we can do. but i do think that politicians, police chiefs, the intelligence services, we've got a role in explaining what this is all about. because i think, while i wouldn't go back to what i said earlier, i don't think snowden had an enormous public impact. it raises questions about who has access to my data and why. but i'm absolutely convinced that proper rules for communications data is essential. i didn't think we got it across to people yet the basics of this. in most of the serious crimes, child abductions, who called who and when and where was the telephone at the time, not the content of the call, but communications data is absolutely vital. and i think we need the police chiefs, the investigators and others and the politicians explaining what this is about. i love watching, as i probably should stop telling people, crime dramas on the television. there's highly a crime drama that a crime is solved without using the data of a mobile communications device. and that's not about the content. it's about -- and the problem we have to explain to people is as you move from a world of people having fixed telephones and mobile phones to skype and phones on the internet and all of that, if we don't modernize the practice and modernize the law, over time we will have the communications data to solve these horrible crimes on a shrinking proportion of the total use of devices. and that is a real problem for keeping people safe. now, i don't know if that was the clearest explanation i could give but we need to make this explanation really, really clear and get it out to people and build, perhaps the start of the next parliament, a cross-party case, a sensible legislation to deal with this issue. i think it is possible, but i think it's going to take a lot of work by politicians across parties to try and take that civil liberties concern seriously but get them in proportion so we can then make some progress. >> thank you, prime minister. i think we'd all agree with that. and i think it follows on very well from what -- perhaps this is something the n.s.c. can look at, how to get what you said over to the general public, the difference between data and content. >> well, the best attempt i've seen so far, i think one or two police chiefs wrote some articles in the newspapers and i thought when they explained just how much this involved in child abduction cases, in solving murders and solving serious crimes, you know, i absolutely see and my work with security services and how vital it is to prevent terrorist attacks, i -- you know, i feel passionate about this. i feel the first responsibility of my job is to help keep people safe. and the fact it's used so much in crime is a very straightforward thing that people can get a hold of. >> thank you. i want to ask you about something else. prime minister, we all understand the desirability of foreign investment and so on. but has the n.s.c. looked closely enough at the issue of foreign ownership of parts of our critical infrastructure? i'm thinking of energy, nuclear power and waste, water and so on. and are you confident that there isn't reason to be concerned about whether or not there should be some clear red lines drawn about foreign ownership? >> well, we do have a proper system in place for examining whether inward investments and things like infrastructure are in our national interests. but actually sir kim and i were discussing earlier there will be a proper n.s.c. consideration of this because we have slightly different procedures for some slightly different parts of our infrastructure. and i think it would be good to have a collective discussion when it comes to telecoms and electricity networks and gas networks and what have you that we have all the rules we need in place. so we will do that. i would -- and when we had a specific issue, like huawei, we properly responded to the i.s.c. report. i would not underplay that the fact that britain is saying to the world that we welcome it with investment and we welcome investment into, you know, key parts of infrastructure. the fact that the chinese will be invested, i think is a good thing. it means we can free up more of our own capital to spend on roads and railways and other things. and it also makes an enormous -- it's a very good message for britain going around the world. we are not embarrassed but delighted that indian capital is rebuilding the british car industry. we're delighted that the chinese are going to own part of water, investing in heathrow. i think it's one of our calling cards that we are an open economy that encourages people to invest. so, yes, by all means, let's check if there were security issues we could act properly and appropriately and we will do, but don't lose the position as a great open economy. i was very struck by one of the large chinese investors, britain is better than all. i thought that was a good endorsement. >> thank you. >> prime minister, i think when you're saying you wish you could spend more time and effort on asia, some had a history of trade in this country. [inaudible] i just want to get your view. mr. gates made a comment the other day, former defense secretary of america, to ensure global reach in support of our long-term security interests and fulfilling our part with a crucial relationship with the united states navy, we must guarantee that we have high-end capability with the necessary number and mix of ships? you stated on the 31st of january, 2013, your words, your strong view was that the defense budget will require year-on-year growth beyond 2015. as a leading member of nato, no less than 2% of our g.d.p. for our defense budget, i hope you're able to confirm that this is still very, very much your view and intention and will be emphasized at the nato conference this september. >> i don't move away from the importance of our defense budget and what that should mean for the future at all. where i take issue slightly with former secretary gates is i think actually if you look at the equipment program for our navy, it is absolutely a full spectrum equipment program. you have the two carriers under construction. you have the type 45 destroyers coming into action. you got the future frigate program that is there. you have the hunter-killer submarines. you have the trident submarines and the pledge to renew them and the immense ability the royal marines. in terms of the navy it has a very bright future and it is a full spectrum capability from, you know, the nuclear deterrent at one end to, you know, smaller vessels right at the other end. so i don't accept that we are, you know, shrinking the navy or it's not a full spectrum capability. it absolutely is. as for what you say about asia, i completely agree. we've seen a big increase in our experts to china, for instance, but we're still only 1% of chinese exports. we can, you know, quite easily get to 2% which will be great for us without being a huge change. >> prime minister, there are some who would suggest having more at 26 frigates to meet the very ambitions you have been talking about today will be more than useful. >> i have this debate with the navy all the time. because clearly what's been happening is that we are having fewer, more expensive ships, type 45's, you know, are pretty close to a billion pounds each. they are phenomenally expensive. they are the most modern, most effective. one of our type 45s that's doing more at the moment. i think it's getting quite a lot of attention. there is obviously a discussion we should have, is there a role for other sorts of vessels we should be using as well and what's the tradeoffs between these multipurpose ships that can do everything from drug interdiction in the caribbean right through carrier escorts or complex warfare, is it right to do that or should you try to have more ships that are carrying out more different tasks? and i think it's a debate that will continue. up until now the answer is let's have the multirole ships that can do everything. >> let me switch a subject and that's the role of the n.s.c. and that's energy and energy policy. there are two aspects of it. you have the shorter term policy and the longer term policy. am i right in saying that the only real security strategy is the department of energy and climate change document which obviously leaves out foreign policy, planning and range of other issues and frankly looking 50 or 100 years ahead as to what we should be considering, is that something that almost at the top of the agenda in the years to come on long term? i'll come back to short term in a moment. >> clearly energy security is vital. we were talking earlier about how do you define security? clearly energy security, the ability to power your economy, to power your homes and businesses, that's the key aspect of security and it is something taken seriously by the national security council. we have discussed it and taken papers on it. i would argue that we have a good strategy there. we are renewing our nucelar and we will follow next. we set out a very clear strategy so everyone knows what the rules and the costs are for investing in renewables. and we're moving ahead, not just with new gas plants as appropriate but also with onshore shale gas which i think could be a major industry for britain in the future. so i think we got a long-term plan. and we've got to make sure that every piece of that is put in place. >> and i think our position does put us -- being reliant on so much. >> i think if you look at our energy penetration of imports compared with other countries, because of the north sea, we had a relatively good record. we got the interconnector with france. a potential interconnector with norway. if we make the most of shale gas, then as north sea gas runs down we'll have a new national resource. so when i look at our position in europe and look at, you know, how reliant we are on imports, i'm -- i think we're relatively secure position. we must keep up. that's why the relationship with gasa and others in terms of imported gas, the relationship with norway is fantastically important. making sure we get a decent contribution for renewables. and making this program work. >> could i bring up the other thing that is a really serious problem? we believe our country is facing potentially a very serious crisis of supply and competitiveness at this very moment in time we speak. and are you prepared to set aside the targets in the 2008 climate change act in order to get through this period? if you're unable to act unilaterally, will you seek consensus with the major countries on behalf of the commitments? prime minister, what i ask with that is, do you accept now in retrospect these targets, those set by the former government but were endorsed by you, were huge mistake that threatens the severely damaged and indeed our already damaging europe competitive and growth prospect in years to come? >> prime minister, this view that he expressed may not be shared by -- >> of course. two questions in there. one is the climate change act framework, can that work for us in the long term? my answer is yes, it can. we set these budgets. we have to make sure they'reach. i supported the climate change act and i think we can make it work. the second part i think about the european targets which i think we are capable of meeting, i think you go back over the history and argue whether it was right to have as many specific targets, you might come to a different answer. europe is reviewing -- the e.u. is reviewing this at the moment about whether the specific targets are correct. but look, the question i ask and i got the energy industries, the national grid and everybody else around the table, i checked that our situation was robust, is are we content with the rules we have in place and everything we have in place that we are energy secure in terms of our short, medium and long-term future or are there any changes we need to make about decommissioning coal plants, bringing on gas more quickly or anything else and the answer i got was that the rules and regulations and capacity mechanisms are in place so we have the energy security that we need. so the question you put is very important. but i don't think either the climate change act or our own situation is one that we ought to be concerned with but one that i think we need to make major change. >> [inaudible] this is just not my view. it's head of the international energy agency based in paris and in london here today, we were discussing only the subject of deep, deep critical concern about europe's competitiveness. >> the european union -- they'll debate at the march council. they'll think very carefully about international competitiveness and prices. the united states has 10,000 shale gas wells. in europe we got about 100. and so i think we do need to think about the competitiveness picture. i completely agree with that. i don't think throwing out the window the concern about carbon emission reduction. what is the market in europe, that would be a very good thing. make sure we make use of shale gas. we are committed to cheap green energy and keep driving down the price of these new technologies. if we do all those things we can be green and competitive. >> we are almost out of time. i just want to take you back for a moment. to something you said about the maritime -- about the navy. i am reminded about what was said recently, unless we change our current course, not enough people. to staff it. he said the royal navy was close to its critical mass. and i applaud what you said about the navy. >> well, i think -- to be fair, what was said, if spending reductions went further, there would be a danger of what was called hollowing out. if we were in danger of that happening with what we have. the point i would make is that in the sdsr we made decisions with the chiefs of the defense staff around the table that we're about the future capabilities of the u.k. and a very strong argument was made, which i completely agree with, that we need to have a navy that is full spectrum, that's got everything from those submarines, the type 45's, to the future frigates and everything else. and that was a real priority. we've taken this gap in capability, which we'll refresh with the new carriers, and that's incredibly important. i don't see -- obviously want to do everything we can on value for money, on efficiency. i think if we do that i don't see any reason why we won't be able to properly run and crew these excellent assets. and also i think it's encouraging people to join the navy. the opportunities when you got this absolutely world first- class equipment that's running out of our ship-yards at the moment, it is terrific to encourage people to join up. >> can i applaud what you just said about the gap being replaced by new carriers? [laughter] >> you have about two minutes. >> [inaudible] going back to the earlier question, in a public meeting, if the secretaries get their way and break scotland up from the kingdom, what are the national security implications of that? i think you stated publicly some of those implications but i wonder if you could elaborate a little bit more. >> in a nutshell, we are more secure together as well as more prosperous and all the rest of it. scotland makes an enormous contribution to the u.k.'s defense. i will be making a speech soon which is it's very important everyone in the rest of the united kingdom emphasizes how much we benefit of scotland staying in the united kingdom and that's something i feel passionate about. >> we're grateful, prime minister. and i think we got through most of the things we wanted to get through. i think you would have gathered that we are very anxious about the national security strategy, anxious that the next one will be better. one point we have made repeatedly is how much we would like to see it drawn outside experts and other views. without any disrespect to the people we have. and a couple of times it's been suggested that the government might consult this committee and we very much hope that it will and we will do our best to be cooperative and helpful. >> thank you. we are keen to hear the views of others. in the end, the government has got to own this document. so it's got to reflect our collective view. but the more input and also identifying gaps and weaknesses that your committee does frankly the better. >> very kind of you. thank you very much indeed. order, order. the meeting is now adjourned. >> so i think we ought to come i think we adopted this amendment and previous iteration a couple years ago. and so i would offer this amendment at this time. >> senator coburn? >> i have no objection to this amendment. amendment. amendment. i think without too accepted unanimously unless some of our colleagues disagreed. >> i agree. all in favor say aye. opposed to nay. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. senator mccain. >> i'd like to propose an amendment, amendment number five. intent of the amendment is to allow the postal office to move to five day mail delivery. it would allow the postal service to move to a five day mail delivery while still providing universal mail service to the american public. i guess the amendment needs to be distributed, or -- it has been? postal service estimates that move into a five day mail delivery will say them $2 billion a year. the cost savings come from reducing overhead costs involving delivering mail six days a week. regardless of mail volume. if we don't reduce current costs, we asked the chairman pointed out, the taxpayer bailout of the postal service is inevitable. the bill today does include language that would allow the postal service to move to five day mail delivery, if total mail volume during any consecutive quarters drops below 140 billion pieces, according to recent projections by the postal service, mail volume won't drop below that level until 2017 or 2018. and i believe we should not wait for five years for this commonsense approach to save billions a year. since 2009, the postmaster general has been coming to congress, including before this committee, asking for this flexibility. i think that we ought to understand that in this day and age, family, friends, colleagues, all of us communicate with each other in a very different way than we did years ago. we all use smart phones an e-mail to communicate. the postal service must be given the opportunity to adapt to changing times. the american people already have. the mail delivery changes need to be based on declining mail volume, which is declining at a fast pace. the average household received five mail pieces daily a decade ago. it now gets for pieces a day. three pieces a day is projected by 2020. first class mail which is the primary source of revenue for the postal service will be 50% off its peak by 2020. and not only is the falling of mail been dramatically reduced, a larger and larger percentage of that mail is what we know of as, quote, chart mail, which we all know what that means. the gao supports moving the five day mail delivery and concluded that it would, quote, in the words of the gao, quote would improve usps's financial condition by reducing costs, increasing efficiency and better aligning its delivery operations with reduced mail volumes. the president of the united states, president obama recognizes the postal service needs to move to ip delivery and included his recommendation in his 2014 budget proposal. the american people i am convinced will accept five day delivery system and are willing to adopt, and public opinion polls, show large majority support five day delivery. we are in an era of change of how we communicate with one another, and i think it's pretty obvious the impact that they said had on the postal service -- that this has had on the postal service and fiscal condition which is unsustainable at this time. so mr. chairman, the issue is pretty well known. we've had hearings on it, without the postmaster general here, we've had gao studies. so i don't think we need a great deal of debate. i know most members have made up their minds on this issue, and that would be glad to curtail further -- i would hope that we could vote on this as soon as possible since it's an issue that's very well known to all of us. i think most members have already made up their minds on this issue. thank you, mr. chairman. >> let me see if i understand your amendment, senator mccai mccain. >> i just forgot something. i want to thank you and senator coburn for the hard work that you've done on this issue. we've had hearing after hearing, meeting after meeting, and the degree of cooperation and effort the two of you have put together on this issue, i'm deeply appreciative. >> well, you know, just looking at the mission last night of immigration reform in the president's speech, we know how hard you've worked on other issues that are at least as difficult or more difficult than this, and we know we're not we need to go on those come and we have some way to go on this one as well. there's been good spirit of negotiation and were looking for principle compromises, and i'm encouraged today, not discouraged. at the end of the day i think our goal should be the postal service is in the condition they need to be in, fiscal condition. if i understand your amendment, the language in our bill, again, the trigger for going from six to five days a wee week services to get off a volume cap i stated earlier and i'll say it again, the bill we passed two years ago was 62 votes. we said the postal service, you cannot go from six to five day a week service into these two years after that. two years after enactment. the bill that tom and i introduced change the language and said no, postal service, you cannot go until one year after that happens. i want to thank dr. coburn for working with us and looking at a lot of different options, but one of the ideas that was brought to us is, i repeat myself, that it's worth repeating, one of the things i like to look at how do we incentivize behavior, personal or behavior, by the way we write our rules and regulations and laws. i'm convinced we don't incentivize anybody in the postal service to work any harder, any creatively, to sell harder if we simply say you can go from six to five in a year or two years. that doesn't incentivize anything. it doesn't motivate anybody. this last saturday, personal example, i went to the post office at one of our local post offices near our home. i wanted to mail a package to my oldest son up in albany, new york. and i was there, just like an oversized envelope. the first thing was the mail clerk, he tried to sell me six different kinds of products. do want to get tracking, do you want interest? he did what he is supposed to be. i want to incentivize everybody. i want to incentivize them to sell and to do what normal you do in a real business enterprise, and that's why i prevail, and tom, i thank him for allowing us to go along with a volume to about 140 billion pieces of mail. here's my question, john. in your proposal, when with the postal service be able to go from six days a week service to five? what would the trigger be? >> i would like to give them the flexibility to do so, and i wouldn't set a specific time that they should do so, but i think it should be allowed to make the decision to become just as the postmaster general has testified continuously before this committee, and the gao has said so, and even the president wants it. but i'm not setting a specific time date's been they would have the discretion? >> move forward as quickly as is necessary to do so. it saves $2 billion a year of the taxpayers money. i think that's, you know -- >> that's real money. >> allow them to do so. >> let me make one more comment and then i will yield to dr. coburn. in a number of hearings with head, witnesses including the postal service, also the unions, and one of the conversations we had, not that many months ago again with i believe both the postal service and the letter carriers who i had urged over the years to negotiate a different kind of rate structure for saturday delivery. to move away from, like, so that they would offer, negotiate a different kind of compensation schedule for the mail that would be delivered on saturday. as you'll recall, the savings that is about $1.8 billion a year according to the postal service. they have taken about 40% out of the cost of delivery on saturday. which i think is a positive. that's still real money, and we have a decision to make it up, the postal service would be allowed to go from six to five next month, next year, the year after that or have some kind of volume trigger. i would urge us to stay with the language on the volume trigger for now, but yield to dr. coburn and to others who have some thoughts. >> my only quick response is they should have done it years ago. >> i actually agree with senator mccain on the need to go to five day. but we have crafted compromise. this bill will not come out of this committee as i can vote if we take it to five day. we don't have the votes to move the bill out of committee. and what i'm trying to do is to keep this carefully ate 20 rule -- 80/20 rule together so we can fix the problem. if we put this in, which i agree it should be there. i think senator mccain has made excellent points about it. we won't have a bill. because of the majority of the colleagues on this committee don't agree with that. so even though i agree with the principle, it's not possible to pass the bill with this amendment in and so, therefore, i'm going to stay with the chairman and vote against this amendment. >> mr. chairman, i'm aware of the sentiment of the committee. that doesn't prevent me, nor has it i been any other time, my tie here in the senate -- [laughter] so i would be more than happy to have the vote move onto the next amendment. >> anyone want to say something on this amendment? all right. all in favor of the amendment please say i go. opposed a nay. the nays appeared to have it. the amendment is not a doctor. what would be next? senator pryor. >> if i may, thank you. i'm going to start with one of my minutes, when to start with senator landrieu's amendment number one. i would ask that a be added as a cosponsor, but this has to do with the fuel usage for the postal system. in 2012, the postal service used $520 million worth of fuel costs. as we know, they are currently using some natural gas in their smaller vehicles, what senator landrieu is asking, within 180 days from enactment, the postmaster general would submit to the committee a report on the feasibility of a pilot program to government the use of natural gas and propane as tools for heavy-duty over the road trucks as a fuel cost saving measure. i would ask that the committee get that consideration, and i appreciate your input. >> we discussed this amendment yesterday. we are inclined to accept the amendment. they are already doing that, so this is an amendment that something they're already looking at, and in this capital expenditure, special in terms of vehicles, that's one of their priorities so we think it's a good amendment and we accept it. >> i accept it as well. any further discussion on the landrieu amendment offered able to buy the senator from arkansas? if not then all in favor say aye. opposed, nickel. the ayes have it in the amendment is agreed to. we go back to republican side. senator johnson. >> mr. chairman, i do not have any amendments to offer. let me explain why. i also want to express my appreciation for the hard work both you and senator coburn have done trying to craft a real solution here. it's not the approach i would take. we've got to solve this problem or else american taxpayer will be on the hook for public tens of billions of dollars, so i truly appreciate the effort. i would have all kinds of different suggestions and ways of doing things, but it really is the 80/20 roads are not going to offer any amendments. i'm going to speak to a number of them that i will support and oppose but i just want to encourage my colleagues to understand the difficult customize, and it's what they're asking for, striking compromise, work with each other and start moving in the right direction. it's not the perfect solution but it does move the ball in the right direction. so i have no amendments to offer other than to support both of your efforts, and thank you for them. >> thank you very been much. thank you for this comment and working for us and to willingness to continue to do so as we move forward. senator pryor, i know you took your shot and offered a senator landrieu's amendment. i would be willing to let you have another one if you want. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you very much. i do have a prior amendment number three, and it has to do with hardship waivers and again, i want to thank the chairman and ranking member for the very hard work to put this bill together. it's not been an easy task. i completely understand that. the bill currently includes language to establish a waiver program for individuals whom centralized or curbside is delivered would be a hardship, that it doesn't say that they could be charged an additional fee for that. so pryor amendment number three makes it clear that those with fiscal hardship to apply for and receive these waivers will not be charged a fee for their waiver application or the actual waiver itself. >> this is one that dr. coburn and i discussed earlier this week. i think we are good to go. >> you spend any more comments? i think we will accept this amendment. >> thank you spent all in favor say aye. opposed, nay. the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. and i think dr. paul, you are up, my friend. >> thank you. i think if there ever was an organization that was bankrupt, it's the post office. i commend you for trying but i think it's not salvageable in its current form. it would have to go through bankruptcy, have to be completely reorganize, have a chance. we do a lot of paper and over and accounting things to shift cost to other people but the other people are still us. we are going to shift $8 billion to medicare and that still us. it's like we're taking it from one taxpayer holding where we '02 another taxpayer place where we still owe it. it doesn't fix the underlying problem of the post office, which is it's an untenable model. i think we should declare bankruptcy and start over. to this amendment, declares that the post office can, in fact, declare bankruptcy. we would then renegotiate contracts. i'm going to introduce amendment number two actually. it i believe includes all of this, declaring bankruptcy. it also would say that you can still have unions but collective bargaining over wages should not be something that we do in the post office to we have done this in wisconsin and we saved dramatic amounts of money. wisconsin has gone from only like $4 billion to being in the black light in when you. it's a phenomenal success. wisconsin is now turning back nearly a billion dollars to its taxpayers, so does work. i'm not against collective bargaining. i'm all for the little guy. in fact.in fact, i think the liy should organized a power and leverage against the big guy. the problem with government unions is that you are sorted using your collective bargaining, coming together to of leverage against people who are on the other side of the table who you gave money to india elected. it is a truly and adversarial relationship. if the union on one side with their sympathizers on the other side so you're not negotiating and avicel process. as a consequence you don't achieve a market price for anything. you achieve an inflated price. the post office has i think 80% of the cost of the post office our labor. ups which is unionized and i'm not opposed to ups's in my state and i'm not going to do anything to prevent ups or been unionized, 80% of their costs our labor. look at fedex, it's 38%. they are nonunionized. the cost of labor is too high. it has to be reform. it can only be by starting over and having a new contract without collective bargaining. the only other thing my enemy does is it gets rid of the clause that says you can never let anybody off. nobody wants to do this but that's what any business would do, you would lay off some people. so this amendment would fix the problem. it's dramatic, and i'm sure it will be opposed by some, maybe many, but the thing is this is how you would fix the post office if you truly want you and you truly cared about the taxpayer. thank you and i would like a recorded vote. >> sure, we will. i would like some of the comments, please. >> mr. chairman? >> senator johnson, then senator tester. >> i believe this is the way to resolve this situation, through -- you we organized through the protection of bankruptcy laws. it sounds scary going bankrupt but you are reorganizing under the protection of bankruptcy laws. we are trying to reorganize under the protection of the political process. we will see if it works. i don't know if we could maybe i'm and senator paul's amendment, but that's a we're trying to do. if this process fails, this is probably going to be the only way to resolve it. we have plenty of successful, or unsuccessful private sector businesses that goes the reorganization of the protection of bankruptcy laws and it is the way to resolve this situation but it is very complex and is nonpartisan, arbitrated manner as possible. that's of course what you've been trying to do here and i applaud your efforts but we'll see whether or not we succeed or fail. thank you. >> senator tester. >> yeah, mr. chairman, and this is a question for senator paul through you. and that is i just want to clarify which amendment we are talking do. are we talking about the amendment authorized as -- to file for bankruptcy or are we talking about the other paul amendment that basically takes away collective bargaining? >> we've include all of them public in amendment number two initiative on the length of amendment number two. i'm not going to introduce the other one. bankruptcy, collective bargaining and layoff clause are the three i believe the basic items. >> super. thank you. >> let me give a brief summary of what dr. paul is suggesting. under current law, the postal service unions collectively bargain over working conditions, pay and some benefits. i believe that dr. paul's subsidy would expand to further include pension benefits for new hires, something established by a statute now. the amendment would i believe in collective bargaining, prohibit no layoff clauses but also of the postal service to file for bankruptcy. a process which presumably i think could force some additional cuts in labor costs. let me make a couple of observations if i can. there are a lot of costs they need to be taken out of the auto industry, not that many years ago. it had more assembly plants then you needed. they had more part plants that they need. they had more employees than they needed and they were almost, people would say the auto industry is a health care provider in this country that happens to have a subsidiary that builds cars, trucks invents. with the auto industry did was several things. one, the right size of the enterprise. to reduce the number of a sum of plants and the number of parts plants, they reduced their headcount significantly, and they fix their health care problems. as you recall, you have members in your own state that were involved in this in the uaw. the last head of the uaw was from louisville. what they did was the uaw took over the running of the health care program for its members. a right size the enterprise. what the postal service has been trying to do is actually sort of summer do this. with the legislation against it is the same. headcount is down from over 800,000 down to five and thousand. mail processing plants down from over 600 to almost 300. out of 30 some thousand post offices, roughly a third are on the way to being open maybe two, four, maybe six hours a day, not think the postmaster 50, 60, $70,000 a year to run those not paying an hourly employee to come in and work roughly $12 an hour to run those of out, for those limited hours. that takes a half a billion dollars out of the cost. the other thing, on health care these compiled is mentioned this briefly. some of the heard menus example of comparing health care treatment and costs -- i'll use a palm, my wife is retired from dupont. when she reaches the age of 65, up until now, she's retired, she receives health care coverage from dupont but when she turns 65, dupont company will say to her, we will continue to provide a wraparound program for health care for you, but we expect you to get your primary health care for medicare eight, b. and part d. that's it. it's not just for. it's not just -- it's for a lot of companies in our country. when they -- when the retirees reached 65, they are expected to go to medicaid. the employer provides a wraparound policy to cover those folks. the postal service and dupont company by the way, they get their money, the revenues from their customers. the goods and services that they sell. on the other hand, you have the postal service who pays more money to medicare and any employer in the country. their source of revenues are also good and services they sell. but not from the taxpayers but from their customers. but when you post a retiree reaches the age of 65, the postal service can't say, all right, like dupont and all these other real companies, from now on, retiree, age 65, you've got to get your primary source of health care from medicare and we will provide a wraparound. they can do that. if it's good for dupont and all these other companies in the country that get their revenues from the sale of goods and services they make, why shouldn't the postal service be able to do that? and that's a simple, basic issue. we've about the postal service to mandate the integration of medicare with a wraparound program. it saves money for the postal service. we think it's a fair and equitable thank you. i do know that the it's going to but that's the rationale. let me just yield to others who might have comments to make. i can, i'll say, what were presented to you is again plan that enables the postal service we believe to be financially not just in return divide dough in the year two, but viable tinges out and hopefully will be on that, to right size of the enterprise and to build on the progress that's been made thus far. anybody else? all right. senator paul has asked for a recorded vote. with that, let me turn first to his vote. senator levin. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] >> mr. chairman, on the vote of those present the a coso for and the nays are none. on this vote the motion is not agreed to. >> senator paul, although we were not able to the agreement, thank you for offering. thank you for really are created and thoughtful approach to these issues in ways that we need to hear, so thank you. senator mccaskill, i believe you are next. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you and just as hard work on this legislation. this is not easy stuff. the amendment that i would like to bring up is mccaskill amendment number one. it establishes a one year moratorium on closing rural post offices and it strikes the five year sunset. it is offered on behalf of myself, senator heitkamp, senator tester, senator pryor and senator begich. there really is no rational reason for sunsetting these protections. protections are there for a good reason, to make sure that the universal service mandate is respected and usps should have the right an opportune to right size itself based on the size of its business revenue and there's nothing in this amendment that prevents that. these requirements are not onerous on the postal service, but it does force them to recognize the unique role of post offices in world communities. and i would urge the adoption of this amendment by the committee. >> dr. coburn, do you want to go first? >> when you visit with the postal service, their post plan has -- and it said no closing of rural post offices. to whether this is in the bill or not won't make any difference to what they're going to do because they have no plans to close another wrote post office because they've taken the majority of the costs out. i know there's a trust factor there, so i'm not in opposition. if you want to put it in, it's there. will have to work on it as we go to the floor in terms of online that with what they are planning, but they have no intention now of doing it. i don't think that's a smart move. and the reason it's not -- i tried 3.8 miles to my post office. in a lot of the rural areas of oklahoma we have less than 3.8 miles between towns, and yet there's a post office in each of those towns. i live in a count of 40,000 people, so what we are saying is even though it makes economic sense, it's no hardship and the vast majority of this committee, i think senator tester drives almost 70 miles to a post office, the vastly greater of the members of the many tribal i get to the post office. so by putting this in what we're really doing is come in the future, would we not at some point say that if there's three towns in a radius of 10 miles, would it not make sense from a cost standpoint -- it's certain not more inconvenient. maybe it's you, claire, 6.8 miles. so the point, the point i'm making is if you do this, and you put this in, which i'll vote with the chairman on it, however were -- however when he goes, which are doing is saying when it going to ever look at commonsense consolidations, even though i know we don't trust what the postmaster has said on this, but that's the fact that the post plan is working pretty well now. i think most people would agree. >> thank you, dr. coburn. some other comments, please. >> i woul which is clarify, it's 10 miles in the amendment. >> just a quick -- what is it about the post plan that you find troubling? >> listen, we would have a lot less to do around it if we decided we'd just take a pass when government agencies said they plan and doing something. i mean, we do legislation all the time to lock in agencies on plans that they have stated. and this is just frankly locking them in, which i think is important in terms of rural communities. >> i see we have any audience the deputy postmaster general, very nice to see. in our conversations before, we've talked about the implication of the post plan. for those of you not familiar with the, the idea the postal service offer a menu of options to communities that the postal service is sinking. what i understand in a post plan, the postal service has a menu of options that could be keep your post office, it could be keep their post office that will be a pretty necessary six days a week eight hours day but could be six or four hours a day. it could be with someone paid, not suffered postmaster but someone paid on an hourly basis. that's an option to other options include moving the post office into a local store, convenience store, general star, something like that. it could be rural delivery, kind of like a bookmobile. some other options as well. what we want to make sure going forward, and dr. coburn and i talked a fair amount about this amendment trying to find some common ground with senator mccaskill. i want to make sure at the end of the day, a lot of folks about a chance to look at this, i just want to make sure there's nothing in this amendment that separates the post plan. and i would just ask you, go ahead and take a table and just want you to answer for us on the record. i don't mean to put you on the spot, but i'm going to. i would appreciate hearing from you whether it's for you can tell, your understanding of this event, it's not undermine the post plan can we still be in a position to be in a position to implement that. if you could just react to this amendment from that perspective, please. co-head and make sure mic is on, please. >> correct, mr. chairman. the restrictions are little more restrictive than we have now in the post plan but generally speaking, this would be acceptable to us. i mean, it is consistent with the overall intent of the post plan. so while it is slightly more restrictive than the post plan is now, i think generally speaking we would be able to live with it. >> mr. chairman, can i ask a question? >> please. >> it also strikes the five your son said on additional requirements before closing. are those requirements pretty onerous? doesn't make it impossible to close a post office and is that a problem for the post office? >> as the chairman indicated right now we are not interested and have no intention of closing post offices. we think right now the ability to reduce traffic, take costs out, consistent with revenue is the way we want to go. i mean, i think we believe as a useful -- universal service obligation to row american that we take very, very socially. i think the existing post plan is working well. again, this is slightly more restrictive but i think we'll be able to work with it. >> so there's no plan to close any post office anywhere in the united states an american? >> not in rural america, no. not right now. >> what about urban american? >> i think what we have to look at and urban america is ever have an issue. i think it's a question of -- >> in other words, no plan. thank you. >> just to clarify this, if we can, in terms of -- what we're interested in doing is trying to take costs out of the system and still provide service? >> that's right. were not interested in closing post offices at this point. >> they say we were not close your post office necessary, but it ain't going to be open six days a week, not eight hours a day and were not going to pay a postmaster $70,000 a year. it may be open to hours a day, four hours, whoever is working there, we'll get paid 10, $12 an hour. that takes huge amounts of costs out of the postal service's budget. i think it takes about half a billion dollars a year out of their costs. >> that's the savings, that's correct. that's a lot of money. >> naked series consideration to goes and i think 5000 those office. they decided after running the numbers they could save more money i doing this than closing for 5000 post offices. strange as it may sound. senator mccaskill, can you -- with that in mind, anyone in discussion of this amendment? clutter, i would just ask you come you worked with dr. coburn and myself and my staff going to the fore. i want to talk to you about it more. so it's well understood, okay? we will go with you today. and in that spirit let me ask -- has anybody asked for a recorded vote on this amendment? no recorded vote. all in favor say aye. opposed say nato. -- say nato. with that having been said, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. dr. coburn, thank you. >> senator enzi, you are next. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and my amendment, the one i put in, ma follows on the discussion that we just had. but it doesn't just refer to rural post offices. this would refer to all post offices, and my only regret is, and this comes from the way that the last closings were kind of handle. we got this list of post offices that were going to be closed. we had no idea what the costs were, nor did the people who lived in those communities. and there was a lot of angst over it, and eventually they were persuaded, i guess, to hold some hearings in those towns, and they did get some suggestions. of course, that resulted in none of the post offices being close for a variety of reasons. but what we're talking about calls, some the urban post offices have a whole lot more costs than the rural post offices. those costs ought to be looked at, too. and it shouldn't be just on the basis of getting a hold of him and say, here's some cost and we're looking at closing you down. any business is supposed to look at all of its costs every year all the time. and so all of the people in those post offices often with the costs of their post office is, and the cost of their jobs. years ago i had been into a thing called the great game of business. it was about a firm in missouri that was about to go out of operation. they re- fabricated tractors and the employees look at losing their job and they said wait a minute, maybe we ought to buy the plant. maybe we could do it. they didn't have the money to be able to purchase it, but they were able to work some different mechanisms and actually took control of the plant and figured out what every single persons, every action cost and are able to make that a growing concern. it's a fascinating way of having the employees even celebrate all the successes of their operation, and there's no reason that should happen in the post offices. so that all ought to be concerned about how much what did you and what everybody else does and what it costs and what advantages would be of expediency and service and other services. so i think we ought to give that challenge every post office. and this one, unfortunately, just as they won't close the post office. that's what they ought to be doing. so i would hope that wewould approve this amendment. >> senator enzi, i think you put forward a thoughtful a minute and i plan to support and whatever -- urge my colleagues to do the same. dr. coburn? no, okay. all in favor please note i go. opposed nay. the ayes have it. thanks so much. it's part of the bill. senator baldwin, you are next, please. please proceed spent i appreciate my colleagues allow me to go out of order. i was called to preside at men, and i would like to be present during the discussion on the a minute i want to offer. i want to start also by thinking the chairman and ranking member for the process, the hearings we had come the access to discuss this throughout the process. and in particular as a new senator, they hearings gave me the opportunity to appreciate how the economy of my state is intertwined with the health and sustainability of the post office. i come from a state with a timber industry, a paper industry, a printing industry, a mailing industry. we employ 12,000 postal workers and about 200,000 folks who work in those related industries. and the health of each are intertwined. and so i'm offering an amendment today and do so because i understand that interconnectedness, and because i want to make sure that the 10 year picture is a positive one. and maybe in the discussion if you want to go into the grass further, i certainly dispute the tenure number. but let me just talk a little bit about this amendment before we get into the debate. since i have to, let me make sure that i call up baldwin-mccaskill number one and recognize my colleague and thank her for her work with me on this. the amendment strikes section 301. that section concerns also rates, and it does so while maintaining the repeal of political committees rate preference. i want to make that clear. the amendment maintains the recently decided exigency rate increase which allows for the 2.8 billion in revenue to be collected by the postal service from its customers. it will also maintain the scheduled rewrite of the rates in 2017, which could lead to future rate increases. only they would be part of a transparent process that involves postal service customers, and i want to return to this point in a moment because there are two their import aspects to this amendment. one is about rates but the other is about governance. as the rates, as currently drafted section 301 of the substitute, permanent locks in the 4.3% exigency rate and will allow postal rates to increase by as much as 22.5% in three years. i'm not saying that will happen but that's what it will allow. this will drive mail volume out of the system, hasten the move to five day delivery and put in an industry that has lost more than a million jobs since 2007 at further risk. but now i want to turn some attention to the issues of governance. because i think that's a really key issue here. under current law, which are amendment would maintain, the postal regulatory commission, the regulatory agency, which established the new rate system in 2017. however, under the substitute, it transfers this authority to the board of governors of the postal service. it transfers the authority to the postal service. the board is instructed to consult with its regulator, but they can override the prc with a two-thirds vote of the board. no public or quasi-public entity, especially one with monopoly power, should have the near absolute control in setting its own prices. it's just wrong and there is no circumstance in which a monopoly like the postal service should be able to override its regulator. i ask you to think of other instances. setting utility prices. you can't imagine giving the utilities sold out to do that, or near sole power to do that. you go through a regulator that represents the voices of the people and the customer. so with that brief description, i offer the amendment and urge its adoption, and would be happy to participate in the debate. >> senator coburn? >> could you explain how you got 22.5% potential rate increase? >> so, it's the compounding of the exigency rate over the three years taking in the rate, cpi plus when you're out. >> i would just make the point for the record that the exigent pricing -- for so, we passed the bill in 2006, and we have a system that you're proposing we stay with. and what happens to this? the prc didn't allow the rate increases to go to meet the cause of the post office. and so, therefore, if you price in the cpi plus one for two years, the difference between the exigent price increase and cpi plus one is .6%. that's the only difference between exigent. but i would also remind our colleagues that the exigent price increase is limited. it falls back after they of the committed so much in revenue. and the other point i would make is that the mailer today are suing over the exigent price increase, i believe everybody acknowledges that. we have a system that lost $12 billion last year, and they got a cpi plus one for two years added in as an exigent price increase and they are still not going to be profitable. so abandoning what we put in the bill to allow pricing at cpi plus one will do, it's fine to do that if you want to do that. tell me where you're going to take the costs out too great a positive cash flow for the post office. you can offer to cut all this revenue and then say, here's how we balance that, with a positive cash flow. so i don't have any problem with what you want to do, just tell me where we're going to cut the cost to make it cash flow neutral. not a loss. they don't have to necessarily have to have positive. tell me what going to do to be able to get the costs down. recommend the cost cuts to pay for the. and the point is, what people discount is the post office knows where they can and can't push prices for our mailers. and i understand -- i understand we are changing the way we communicate in this country. we've lost a third of first class mail since 2007. 32% decline in volume. it's going to continue to decline, four to 6% per year. and that's where we make money. we subsidize the mailing industry today to the tune of about $1.3 billion a year. that's what associated costs with their rates. so the very people that are being subsidized today are suing because they got a rate increase, and now want no further rate increases in the future. and i think the compromise that we put forward when i met with those people, what they said is we need certainty about what the future is going to be. we have locked that in with this bill. we blocked and what it is. it doesn't say they would've cpi plus one. it says a major cpi plus one. the other point i would make, you have a business entity and it's a quasi-business, i agree with you, that has a board of governors they can't govern because they have another board that has to prove what they do in terms of rates, and then even when they do, a court ends up deciding. will never get the post office profitable. if we don't raise rates, you have to increase cuts. i'll remind everybody here that the tough one that we had before this committee is cut, cut, cut is not a way to save the post office. that was one of the big messages that we had in our hearing. you can't cut it in savings to kept increase revenues and yet the end of it. one of the things we put in this bill is innovation. senator sanders idea coming forward. so the other thing i would say, if this amendment passes, this bill fails and we have to start all over. what i would suggest to my colleague from wisconsin is offer this amendment with the cuts that you would put in place to replace the revenue. tell us where else we can, where the post office can do that if, in fact, we're going to not allow them to have rates. and running the post office is, in terms of pricing come is are difficult for them to do because they know when rates go up there going to lose more falling. so they have a pressure on them to keep their volume up, and much like senator carper said, selling more, doing more, promoting more, their goal is to try to raise volume, you know, hang on to the volume that they can. so i understand perfectly why you are offering your amendment, but i would say the amendment is incomplete without balancing the difference -- the differences in terms of revenue decreases. and if you actually take those numbers, if you take the baldwin amendment and the court upholds the prc position, we go to $7.8 billion negative cash flow. and if you have, and no five day delivery or orders come prefunding and cpi, cpi increase only with the court upholding it, you go to $18.3 billion debt, negative cash flow for the post office. so that's what the result is ever there's no reason to pass a bill if we strike 301 because we will not have solved the problem. so my suggestion is offer them in with the appropriate cuts and also seek a positive cash flow or at least a neutral position in terms of the debt of the post office. because we don't really do the mailers a favor by not passing the bill. and if we're not going to pass the bill, we need to go back to what senator paul suggested. put it in bankruptcy. so it's an unbalanced and, ma and i understand the motivation behind it, but it doesn't solve the problem. it solves the problem for one group but it makes the problem for the post office that much more arranges, $18 billion. that's a $25 billion shipped to the post office. >> thank you. i agree. i was a some comments of my own. not just yet, but doctor -- dr. johnson to senator johnson, you want to chime in and we will go back to senator baldwin? >> i would usually like to understand all the pricing throwing around terms and percentages and with custom spreadsheets which are really appreciate. i'm a number of gaza want to understand this. without putting anything on the spot, i truly would like to understand the work of other 22% potential price increase, in number form, start with an invoice i can is exactly how that's working. i would also like to understand exactly the price break up or makeup of these schedules. how is this actually working? so again, it's just a question. i almost can't ask more questions without a little more detail on this. this is all quite confusing. and i believe what senator coburn is saying is if this amendment passes, the bill fails. it would be a real problem. we need to really fully understand what we are talking about here. as an accountant i don't understand this. >> back to you, senator baldwin, and i want to make some comments of my own. >> let me say a couple of things. first of all, senator coburn, in your comments you referred to the committee furnished tenure charts on -- tenure charts it might men were to be adopted, and i guess when that was first distributed i have some objections to the projections, because under my amendment, which maintains current law, in 2017 they would still be a scheduled rewrite of the rate process. and so anything to the right of that is, you know, a projection. of course, you have to make those and we struggle with the. i would say if you do a line to the right of the column that says 2016 in both graphs we would be dealing with hard data, anindicating to the right of tht we are dealing with estimates and projections. it is my belief that when you challenged me, senator carper, to sort of talk about how we end up in the black at the end of those 10 years, i would talk about the compromise that i've been discussing with the committee prior to offering my amendment. because since the exigency rate was approved by the prc a little over a month ago, you know, that sort of changed the starting point for this discussion. so i think that if you allowed the exigency rates to continue, but instead of doing it all at once you've flattened it out over three years with the cpi plus one gap, you maintain the cpi -- sorry, the postal regulatory commission authority to rewrite the postal rates in 2017 within but, of course, from the u.s. postal service but also from mailers and policy unions and postal customers, as is in the current law, and to gradually bring the increased rates of underwater classes of mail outside of the 2.8 billion in revenue from the exigency case that, that's the projection to get us to being in the black in the 10 year projection. but in the meantime, i guess also want to respond to what you had to say about, you know, the current system working. again, this is a monopoly. the idea of, say, an electrical utility just setting its rates and not being able to be overseen by, you know, public service commissions of our states is almost unthinkable. but with prc oversight, the exigency case did go through. so that shows that that regulatory process does not preclude exigency or emergency rate increase the. and it wouldn't precluded in the future. we've just seen that this regular oversight can work. the last thing i wanted to just mention, i have the formula, how we got up to 22.5% in three years, assuming inflation readings constant, of course. the formula is -- let's see. 100 times 4.3% exigency plus 1.7 cpi plus 1% compounded over three years. that's where we get there. >> we would be only over to. you're importing a. that would be 15 and 16. >> the underlying bill of ousted to go through for three years. >> let's back up just a little bit. obviously this year, dr. coburn and i introduced a compromise bipartisan postal bill. and with respect to rights, what we basically agree to is a free market system. the idea that the postal service would be able to come would take away the caps. we had a cpi cap in place were a number of years. take it away. the id would be the postal service could come in with different products, charge what about the market would bear. our thinking was if they come in and want to raise rates for magazines or catalogs or other products, if they raise them too high, the business will drop off and don't have to figure out how to lower the rates so that mailers start mailing those particular products. that was the original idea. sort of a pure market system. but we got a lot of pushback on that and what we've done in offering our amendment, our manager's amendment come is to say that the exigency rates ca case, decided by the prc on a two-year basis to make that the base, the new baseline, then after to provide on an annual basis starting in 2016 cpi plus one. what that does is a couple of things. one, mailers don't like it. i'm not going to suggest that they do. but in terms of better enabling the postal service to cover the cost of different products, it gives them some additional flexibility. number two, it provides some certainty for the mailers. it's not like our original bill, which is a crapshoot, in their words. ..
forget it. at 3:00 it's like total gridlock. now i live down in brunswick georgia, which is near st. simon's island, and yesterday all of the schools were closed, the bridges -- we were told to stay off the bridges, and today's brunswick news, they had pictures of sanders going over the bridges on checkle island. host: steve, i hate to cut you off but we are all out of time. thanks for watching on "washington journal." we'll be back tomorrow at 7:00 eastern time. we want to bring you to the british prime minister david cameron, talking about syria iran and britain's relationship with the united states. we're joining this in progress here on c-span. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> is it more than that? >> it is a lot more than that because what this national security does, it brings the ministers, foreign -- it's normally the secretary of state. we don't really allow, if we can avoid it, junior ministers in their place. i think it's very important in my cabinet to oversee one of the most important meetings of the whole week. but it brings together foreign secretary chancellor, prime minister -- with the heads of the intelligence agencies with the chief of the defense staff. if necessary, the head of the metropolitan police dealing with counterterrorism and you have the experts in the room as well as the politicians. the format of the meetings is often a presentation rather than just a massive paperwork and the presentation would be given by mr. kim or a leading foreign officer official to set out in front of the committee the choices we have to make. and sometimes it's very operational. we might have a -- on afghanistan, for instance, we want a proper look at the drawdown plans that the ministry has and is that the operational -- right operational thing for britain. sometimes it can be very strategic. we might have a discussion about our relations with the emerging powers, and it will be about how we best go about, who should we be seeking relations with and how do we improve them? sometimes it can be a meeting where it really helps to have a collective discussion. for instance, we have brought together money from defense foreign affairs and i think it's good that we sit around the table. how are we going to spend it? which conflict areas and unstable states should our investments be going into? we'll have a discussion about the budget because obviously it's determined according to eight principles but i think it's important to discuss this collectively so we can see the link between what we're doing in terms of, you know, fragile states that we're trying to help fix with a decision that we're making. what i'm trying to say sometimes very operational sometimes very strategic but sometimes genuinely making operational decisions that have an impact across. >> that's very useful. in terms of perhaps the longer term or more strategic meetings that you could have, one thing we noticed is that the meetings dry up in july and they start again sometime in october. what about having one or two meetings extra in that period to look more widely at things, if you like, and at the same time the committees -- whether in fact the n.s.c. has sufficient outside expertise to come in and give advice and knowledge to help you out? >> how many staff? >> two. >> oh, no, the n.s.c. is serviced by the national security secretary which is 200 people. you really feel that the n.s.c., it's not a committee that brings it together. it has a proper team together behind it that will operationalize decisions and make them happen. we have, i think on occasion brought outsiders in but we also occasionally had seminars and n.s. -- that n.s.c. members would attend in order to hear frouds experts. we had a particularly good session on pakistan and afghanistan when some experts came. we have a special n.s.c. in august last year on syria. the -- my g-8 agenda in terms of transparency and all of that we had a whole series of experts to address those issues. in terms of meeting over the summer, we have had meetings over the summer. i think if the criticism is that urgent operational meetings to discuss syria afghanistan, libya, tends to crowd out more themeattic discussions, i would plead guilty. i think it's inevitable when governments have to prioritize and choose. i think we spent more time on the operational emergencies than rather other things. >> thank you very much. >> with the types of -- although we're doing reasonably well -- [inaudible] >> i support the innovation of the national security council. i think everything allows sharing of stoonl knowledge within governments -- institutional knowledge within governments is a good thing. if there is a strategic decision, let's say relating to defense or foreign affairs, which is usually practiced, the foreign secretary or defense secretary would make the final decision. now we have the n.s.c. you're chairing that meeting. can you think of of anything where there was a defense decision where you have taken the ultimate decision rather than the secretary of state? >> i'm not sure mrs. thatcher or tony blair would say they just left defense and foreign policy decisions to their secretary of state. i think the history -- i think history is more -- it often ends as a bilateral thing when a prime minister and a foreign secretary or prime minister and a defense secretary. the good thing is that it's a more collective way of making decisions. of course, there are decisions made by ministers. you talk about the decisions -- for instance how we went about our engagement in libya and the decisions we made about syria they were genuinely discussed around the table with those ministers, with the expert advice and another point, i think a better institutional izational advice. they sit around the table and he gives his opinions on those things. if you're asking, are there times when the n.s.c. comes to a different decision what the defense secretary or prime minister walked into the room, yes, i think they have. that's what collective decisionmaking is all about. >> we'd like to ask a series of questions on how the system actually works in practice. and you mentioned syria. in a sense of repeat of the question that was asked, how did the national security strategy affect the way you made decisions and the decisions you took on syria? >> well, obviously when we drew up the strategy and the sdsr in 2010, we didn't have perfect foresight about what was going to happen in the events of the arab spring in syria. i'd like to think that the decisions we've made in all these have been relatively consistent with the strategy set out in the national security strategy. but i don't -- you know strategy always has to be adaptable and has to be changeable according to circumstances. i think it was mike tyson who said everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth. you have to make sure you can adapt what you have. the strategy is about britain engaging in the world in order to protect its interests and protect british values like democracy and freedom of speech and human rights. i say what we did in libya and the approach we've taken in syria is consistent with that. >> what will you say your strategic goal was in syria? >> i think two-fold. first of all, we've taken a general view as a national security council that while there are risks in the instability that the arab spring has thrown up we've taken a general view that the advance of what i would call the building blocks of democracy, more open societies, more participating systems is a good thing in the long term for security. there will always be bumps on the road but that's a good thing so basically we need to be encouraging those sorts of developments. >> what about the use of force in august? >> the use of force that was being asked for was linked to the issue of chemical weapons. i think the debate in a way we had in parliament ended up being a debate, quite a lot of it what happened in iraq and what some people feared might happen in syria wasn't really a debate so much about the use of chemical weapons and our response to that. i think there was a tough global response, syria decided to give up its chemical weapons and progress on that is not too bad. when it comes to approaching syria, our arguments have been britain continues with its very strong position on humanitarian aid which is set out in the national security strategy. we continued our support for developments positive under the arab spring which i think are consistent with the values in here. but we are also taking a very, very strong and careful look how we protect ourselves from the risks of terrorism and extremism which i think is a growing threat in syria. i have think we need to spend a huge amount of time working how to best mitigate that. >> but coming back to the issue of chemical weapons for a moment presumably you had a strategic goal in mind. what was it? was it to make assad give up the chemical weapons or was it regime change or -- >> the strategic goal was not -- the strategic goal that i discussed with president obama before the vote in the house of commons was that having set a red line on chemical weapons use, we couldn't allow assad to cross it with impunity. and the sort of military action that was envisioned was purely and simply about chemical weapons. we judged -- i judged that it was important, not only in the context of syria but also the argument i made in the house of commons was that the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons has been important to britain and countries like britain for decades and so it was worthwhile taking a strong stance on this issue, not just because of syria, but the message it would send to other dictators around the world if we did not take that stand. i said happily without military action being taken, the desired effect has been achieved which is they do look as they're making real progress on giving up chemical weapons. that's what it was about. it was not about regime change. it was not about broadening the -- >> we are all concerned about the implications of people in syria -- certainly with this country honing skills in combat acquiring new techniques and so on. was that discussed with the national security council? >> yes in great detail. all through our discussion about syria. syria has been a real difficult challenge for policymakers all over the western world. nobody wants to get involved in conflicts. but on the other hand, everyone can see right from the start this was a conflict which was going to drive extremism and instability and cause huge problems in the region. that's been a massive challenge. all we've discussed about syria we discussed about the dangers of british people traveling to syria, extremism, terrorists returning home. i think it's extremely worrisome at that moment. in the house of commons we are debating how we should take away people's citizenship. so we have a government response which is securing our borders, discouraging people from traveling to syria, working with allies to deal with the terrorist threat, stopping people coming back etc., etc. i mean it's a very big focus for us right now. >> and the decision with the national security council? >> that was something we have looked at in the national i ask unanimous consent. i don't recall if the decision was taken for that particular measure. she has been empowered by the national security council to look at these issues. >> that's very helpful. this isn't just about foreign policy. domestic elements to that. but there are obviously other issues where people might say, hang on defending country against terrorism we put 600 million a year into counterterrorism. another two billion pounds on intelligence account. yet, we have people at the moment having problems with floods and particularly on flood defense i think we were at 560 million, rising next year. does the national security council get involved in deciding how to allocate resources between the different risks on the national risk list and if so how do you reach a conclusion? >> it's a very good question. what we have is a national risk assessment as well as a national risk register which is a document we used to try and assess these risks. we discuss that and agree and try to make sure we're dealing with risks in an appropriate way. it's very difficult to try and measure up the amount you spend on one subject with what you spend on another. i can't pretend there is an exact science in it, but i would say because all these risks and risk registers are brought together in the national security secretary, at least we have one part of government trying to measure all this up and the committee then looks at it. >> so do you look at those resource choices? >> we, we do look at resource choices. specifically in terms of intelligence. but it is quite a good example of the national security council in action. the budget comes in front of the n.s.c. and we have to -- it's a good moment where the politicians can act as inquiz tores to the experts how we got it right between counterterrorism and espionage and wider broader intelligence spending. do you measure up flood on the one hand to the chance of terrorism on the other? well, they are all in the national risk register. there is a science where you have the exact amount of money in the right place. >> 600 million -- >> you're bringing it together. you're looking at your potential weaknesses and you are uhle' try to make sure you are correctly identifying the gaps. >> has the national security council discussed flooding? >> we have a subcommittee -- national risk register, national risk assessment and we have a subcommittee that looks at resilience and threats and hazards, but flooding has more generally been dealt with through cobra. i think it's a mistake to think that the n.s.c. is entirely strategic and cobra is entirely operational. i do use cobra to address issues where you need a -- it slightly wider than the national security council and flooding is a good example of that. >> and part of that process, do you have a long-term plan with the impact of climate change on the u.k.? have you considered which parts of the infrastructure is threatened by rising sea levels? >> we, we had discussions in the national security council about climate change. we need to have another one before the meeting. we also have a piece of work that's been done on critical infrastructure and the potential threat to critical infrastructure, including from floods and from rising sea levels and that has been considered. i want to make sure i'm not misleading the committee in any way. the critical infrastructure is something that's coordinated by the n.s.s. and then get some -- put to ministers. >> mr. prime minister, talking about the reorganization of the ministry of defense. this committee's report last year mentioned the fact that the future army 2020 for example, we joining the structure of the reserves has not been something that's come before the national security council. do you think we were right to be concerned about that? >> i never want to criticize it. my nephew has done a fantastic job. i think it's actually true to say that the national security council did discuss the army structure before the announcement was made. so i don't want to give the impression this was a process entirely outside -- >> i think the secretary of state -- >> right. ok. [inaudible] i think you have a fair point. it was done by the n.s.c. a piece of it was sorted out later, was the overall structure of the army. and i think i'm right saying the reserve work was commissioned by the n.s.c. and the result of that and the future structure of reserves versus regulars, that was discussed by the n.s.c. before announcement. have i got that right? >> that is good to know. >> i think if you're saying, look, you should have done the thing in the go, sometimes these things a few iterations. >> probably impossible. >> thank you. prime minister, still on security but changing the emphasis somewhat, risk of public perception. mention has been made of flooding. if you ask lots of people they would say flooding. when we had incidents -- i'm wondering to what extent your strategy, which you outlined all the economic benefits, which we all would agree with, who is responsible for engaging the public so their perception of risk is not just a knee jerk reaction to the latest problem? and that when somebody challenges what the government is doing you're actually able to extend. we are talking about syria. you said even debate in the house focused on iraq. so how do you deal with that? who in government is responsible for getting that kind of message about public perceptions of britain? >> i hope by having a national security council people can see that these risks in the whole -- in the end it falls to the prime minister trying to explain how we look at risks and the steps we take and what we're trying to do to keep our country safe. i think our scientists can probably help by forming the debate about risks and probabilities. i think also your committee is helping because you're looking at our strategy and you're saying, well have you had enough consideration of this and have you looked at those risks? i think in the end have a strategy, explain what it is. the prime minister has to front it up. the scientists can help by explaining some of the probabilities and risks and that's probably the best you can do. coming back to this flooding versus terrorism, i think people want to know we're doing everything possible to protect dwellings from flooding and we have a forward investment program and all the rest of it. i think people understand there are severe weather events that can affect your country. you do everything you can to mitigate but in the end you can't mitigate against every single thing. whereas these appalling terrorist events, which can be so indiscriminant and are such huge risks, they want to know you're doing everything possible to prevent them from happening in the first place. >> do you think that the recent problems that we have all seen about the snowden revelation, the way in which they have been publicized largely by some people actually undermining public confidence in our security agencies? and if so who's responsible for defending the agencies explaining and getting some perspective to some of the difficult discussions? >> i think first of all in response to snowden, i think what we have to do is make sure we're confident that the governance procedures for the intelligence services are row bust the intelligence -- robust, the intelligence commissioners. i keep asking myself, do we have a good system in place? and i think we have. we're trying to improve it. in terms of, has it dented public confidence in the work of the security agencies? i haven't seen the opinion polling, but my sense is that the public reaction it's a r as opposed to some of the media reaction look, we have intelligence because it's a dangerous world and there are bad people that want to do terrible things to us and we should support these intelligence services and the work they do. i think the public reaction, what i felt in terms of what people's reaction has been, has been pretty robust. who's responsible for defending the security cells and explaining what they do? i think i have a responsibility. i feel like i'm the minister for the intelligence service and i have the responsibility to stand up for them, thank them publicly because they can't be thanked publicly as other emergency services are and try to explain what they do. i've done some of that. i think they are often the best spokesmen -- spokespeople for themselves. i think their appearance recently was excellent. i think the speech that the head of the security cell was very good summary of the threats we face. i don't want them to make a speech every week. i think actually they could help set the agenda and explain what they do perhaps better than anyone. >> final question. don't you think there is potential danger, the lack of public support for a government might feel is essential to do in certain circumstances might be undermined of what would be needed and the better explanation and shouldn't that be part of your planning when you're actually talking about your strategy, the strategy should not be -- it should be about explaining it? >> i think it's a very fair point. i think if you're saying, should the prime minister, the foreign secretary responsible for two of the agencies, should the three of us do more to explain, defend and give people a sense of why their work is so important? yes. i agree with that. i think we should do more. if you're worried about damage -- yes, i'm worried about what snouden did with respect to security. i would ask the newspaper to think before they act because we are in danger of making ourselves less safe as a result. as i say -- but i think the public reaction, as i judge it, has not been one of sort of shock horror. it's been much more intelligence agencies carry out intelligence work could. >> thank you. in hindsight, prime minister is there anything that the n.s.c. has missed? >> i think there are some specific subjects of quite a technical nature that organizations like yours and others have drawn to our attention. i am not a scientist. so e.m.p.'s and space weather, i think that's actually useful to give the officials to say, have we got this covered, have we got that covered? i think we need to go faster with this work about really examining plans, whether it's the budget, whether it's the conflict pool, can we do more to make this organization really drive policy rather than just strategy? i think we should probably do more on that. in terms of missing things, there are lots of things that the pundits and the politicians and the experts have not foreseen in the development of global affairs but that's why, yes, have a strategy but recognize you need to adapt it to changing circumstances. >> one thing that we commented early on that we missed in the original national security strategy, we're about to go on to the next one, was the question the americans announcing their -- it has enormous strategic consequences. that wasn't touched on at all in the security strategy. >> i think i'm right in saying, when was the speech, the great obama speech? was it 2010 or 2011? i say we are doing our own thing. if you look at the amount of foreign office activity in southeast asia the asian countries, what we're doing in china and india, william is changing that department and focusing on the high growth emerging powers and all the rest of it. obviously we haven't mentioned our gulf strategy which is a breakthrough too, to recognize there is a whole set of countries which we have a strong history strong relations where we should try to build on those relationships. so i think we're doing our own thing. i think if i had a wish of replaying it all, i think the thing the sdsr did in terms of moving us away of the battle tanks in western europe and towards flexible, deemployable future technologies, cyber, drones and the rest of it, i which we had done more and faster. and i suppose i'd apply that to the foreign policy side as well. i think this prosperity trade -- trade diplomacy agenda which now is being driven very hard across government, i would have liked to have done more even sooner because i think it's going to be part of our future national success. if we can, you know, massively increase exports to china. that will be a big part of britain's future success story. you remember from being foreign secretary, getting the tanker to move, you would say, i wish i pushed it harder and faster. >> thank you. we'll go on for the next national security strategy. >> thank you very much, chair. when peter was in the role, he told us he would take two years to prepare a new strategy. since then there's been a 25% -- the work on the next strategy hasn't started. was he wrong? can you tell us when it will start? >> the work is beginning on both national security strategy and particularly on sdsr because the next sdsr we need to start planning now. look you can argue forever about how long these things take, but i'm so keen on implementing what we said we were going to do that i put more weight on that. as i say, my fear is that if you move faster on writing new strategies you -- all the people that are trying to deliver what we need in libya or in syria, they'll come off that and they'll start writing strategies again. >> will it be fundamentally different or -- am i right in assuming it won't be finished until the next government is in place? >> both? >> the n.s.c.? >> you're right. they'll get a span a period of the next election. we should be starting now. i don't think -- and if you go back over the national security strategy, it needs to refresh. i don't think it will be a complete overhaul. i think i hinted to margaret if i'm responsible for its eventually outcome, i think it -- eventual outcome, i think it will have that trade prosperity agenda perhaps more strongly. i wouldn't expect a huge change. and the national security security or the sdsr. the strategy we took in the sdsr having a gap in capacity, the exciting thing as we come into the next one, the gap will be coming to an end. we'll have fantastic new carrier in the high seas very soon. >> with planes. >> with planes and people in it. >> can we look between the three of us on this panel some of the specific future things? in particular, we talked about the america. what about the european union? which we will not know in the next strategy whether the u.k. will be part of the european union on or not. so will that be spelled out, the implications being in or out and specifically, how it will change if the u.k. ceases to be a member of the european union? >> my strategy linked in with the national security strategy that we secure a referendum and i want to recommend that we should remain part of a reformed european union and i plan on the basis of success rather than the basis of anything else. but we don't -- european issues, we haven't dealt within the national security council. we dealt with them elsewhere in government. i accept it has important implications to the u.k. i think we should plan on the basis of what we want to achieve. >> yes. it's a democratic vote. if people are going to vote the other way, despite your recommendation, it has strategic implications. i mean, we have a vote this year on scottish independence and the government produced a series of papers setting out their case where the u.k. is better together. will you not do the same thing for the european union? >> well, we have done with the review looked at the various areas. i think once the negotiation is complete, there will then be a period before a referendum where the two sides in that debate can set out their arguments. i -- as you know, we are in a coalition government. the coalition partners have slightly different views about europe. my judge is if we use the n.s.c. to debate and discuss europe issues, we would have a second reading debate. what i want is the actions necessary to deliver it. i think it's better to keep europe out of it. >> well, another specific issue and i'll be quick about this one. we heard in the past that our food security and essentially we are about three days away from a food crisis. most of our food is in transit. we found that out with the truck driver strike. do you believe you have addressed enough about how some disruption of communications could lead to a food crisis and have you responded? is that something that's central to the security strategy? because clearly food shortages could move the country to a crisis in the span of a short period of time? >> what we have done is handling the threats to food supplies, one did a review of emergency planning. it concluded there was relatively good resilience in the u.k. food supply chain. and carried out the assessment in 2010. it's part of the national critical infrastructure plan that we have. you're definitely right. a country that imports food, that has a lot of just in time delivery and all the rest of it dislocation whether volcanic ash from iceland or truck driver strike or what have you does impact those things relatively quickly. i'm satisfied that we have examined the issues, but that's not to say you know, you don't get effects when infrastructure is threatened. >> prime minister, in the annual report on n.s.s. and the sdsr published last december there was a paragraph which started with the sentence -- it has been a government priority to introduce the program to preserve the ability of the security intelligence and law enforcement agencies to have the access they require in communications. it goes on and he with changes to the existing legislative stream work may be required to maintain these vital capabilities. and i understand that the interceptions commissioner is reviewing our legislation. and will no doubt report to you. edward snowden's leaked material, is there anything you could share with us today to comment about the position of the united kingdom in the light of what was said in this report? >> well, first of all, i'd agree with the report that over time we are going to have to modernize the legislative framework and practice when it comes to dealing with communications data. it's obviously a politically quite contentious topic. i'm not sure that we'll make progress on it in the coming months in terms of legislation. there may be things short of legislation that we can do. but i do think that politicians , police chiefs, the intelligence services, we got a role in explaining what this is all about. because i think, while i wouldn't go back to what i said earlier, i don't think snowden had an enormous public impact. it raises questions about who has access to my data and why. but i'm absolutely convinced that proper rules for communications data is essential. i didn't think we got it across to people yet the basics of this. most of the serious crimes, child abductions, who called who and when and where was the telephone at the time, not the content of the call, but communications data is absolutely vital. and i think we need the police chiefs, the investigators and others and the politicians explaining what this is about. i love watching, as i probably should stop telling people, crime dralmas on the television. there's highly a crime drama that a crime is solved without using the data of a mobile communications device. and that's not about the content. it's about -- and the problem we have to explain to people is as you move from a world of people having fixed telephones and mobile phones to skype and phones on the internet and all of that, if we don't modernize the practice and modernize the law, over time we will have the communications data to solve these horrible crimes on a shrinking proportion of the total use of devices. and that is a real problem for keeping people safe. now, i don't know if that was the clearest explanation i could give but we need to make this explanation really, really clear and get it out to people and build, perhaps the start of the next parliament, a cross-party case a sensible legislation to deal with this issue. i think it is possible but i think it's going to take a lot of work by politicians across parties to try and take that civil liberties concern seriously but get them in proportion so we can then make some progress. >> thank you, prime minister. i think we'd all agree with that. and i think it follows on very well from what -- perhaps this is something the n.s.c. can look at, how to get what you said over to the general public the difference between data and content. >> well, the best attempt i've seen so far, i think one or two police chiefs wrote some articles in the newspapers and i thought when they explained just how much this involved in child abduction cases, in solving murders and solving serious crimes, you know, i absolutely see and my work with security services and how vital it is to prevent terrorist afax, i -- you know, i feel passionate about this. i feel the first responsibility of my job is to help keep people safe. and the fact it's used so much in crime is a very straightforward thing that people can get a hold of. >> thank you. i want to ask you about something else. prime minister, we all understand the desirblete of foreign investment -- desisheability of foreign investment and so on. but has the n.s.c. looked closely enough at the issue of foreign ownership of parts of our critical infrastructure? i'm thinking of energy nuclear power and waste, water and so on. and are you confident that there isn't reason to be concerned about whether or not there should be some clear red lines drawn about foreign ownership? >> well, we do have a proper system in place for examining whether inward investments and things like infrastructure are in our national interests. but actually sir kim and i were discussing earlier there will be a proper n.s.c. consideration of this because we have slightly different procedures for some slightly different parts of our infrastructure. and i think it would be good to have a collective discussion when it comes to telecoms and electricity networks and gas networks and what have you that we have all the rules we need in place. so we will do that. i would -- and when we had a specific issue,, we properly responded to the i.s.c. report. i would not underplay that the fact that britain saying to the world that we welcome it with investment and we welcome investment into, you know, key parts of infrastructure. the fact that the chinese will be invested, i think is a good thing. it means we can free up more of our own capital to spend on roads and railways and other things. and it also makes an enormous -- it's a very good message for britain going around the world. we are not embarrassed but delighted that indian capital is rebuilding the british car industry. we're delighted that the chinese are going to own part of water, investing in heathrow. i think it's one of our calling cards that we are an open economy that encourages people to invest. so, yes, by all means, let's check if there were security issues we could act properly and appropriately and we will do, but don't lose the position as a great open economy. i was very struck by one of the large chinese investors britain is better than all. i thought that was a good endorsement. >> thank you. >> prime minister, i think when you're saying you wish you could spend more time and effort on asia some had a history of trade in this country. [inaudible] i just want to get your view. mr. gates made a comment the other day, former defense secretary of america, to ensure global reach in support of our long-term security interests and our part with a crucial relationship with the united states navy, we must guarantee that we have high-end capability with the necessary number and mix of ships? you started on the 31st of january, 2013, your words, your strong view was that the defense budget will require year-on-year growth beyond 2015. as a leading member of nato, no less than 2% of our g.d.p. for our defense budget, i hope you're able to confirm that this is still very very much your view and intention and will be emphasized at the nato conference this september. >> i don't move away from the importance of our defense budget and what that should mean for the future at all. where i take issue slightly with former secretary gates is i think actually if you look at the equipment program for our navy it is absolutely a full spectrum equipment program. you have the two carriers under construction. you have the type 45 destroyers coming into action. you got the future frig ott program that is there. -- frigette program that is there. you have the submarines. you have the triedent submarines and the pledge -- the triedant submarines and the pledge to renew them and the -- in terms of the navy it has a very bright future and it is a full spectrum capability from, you know, the nuclear deterrent at one end to, you know, smaller vessels right at the other end. so i don't accept that we are, you know, shrinking the navy or it's not a full spectrum capability. it absolutely is. as what you say about asia, i completely agree. we've seen a big increase in our experts to china, for instance, but we're still only 1% of chinese exports. we can you know, quite easily get to 2% which will be great for us without being a huge change. >> prime minister, there are some who would suggest having more -- to meet the very ambitions you have been talking about today will be more than useful. >> i have this debate with the navy all the time. because clearly what's been happening is that we are having fewer, more expensive ships, type 45's, you know, are pretty close to a billion pounds each. they are phenomenally expensive. they are the most modern, most effective one of our type 45s that's doing more at the moment. i think it's getting quite a lot of attention. there is obviously a discussion we should have, is there a role for other sorts of vessels we should be using as well and what's the tradeoffs between these multipurpose ships that can do everything from drug interdiction in the caribbean right through carrieress courts or complex warfare, is it right to do that or should you try to have more ships that are carrying out more different tasks? and i think it's a debate that will continue. up until now the answer is let's have the multirole ships that can do everything. >> let me switch a subject and that's the role of the n.s.c. and that's energy and energy policy. there are two aspects of it. you have the shorter term policy and the longer term policy. am i right in saying that the only real security strategy is the department of energy and climate change document which obviously leaves out foreign policy, planning and range of other issues and frankly looking 50 or 100 years ahead as to what we should be considering, is that something that almost at the top of the agenda in the years to come on long term? i'll come back to short term in a moment. >> clearly energy security is vital. we were talking earlier about how do you define security? clearly energy security, the ability to power your economy to power your homes and businesses and that's the key aspect of security and it is something taken seriously by the national security council. we have discussed it and taken papers on it. i would argue that we have a good strategy there. we are renewing that point and we will follow next. we set out a very clear strategy so everyone knows what the rules and the costs are for investing in renewables. and we're moving ahead, not just with new gas plants as appropriate but also with onshore shale gas which i think could be a major industry for britain in the future. so i think we got a long-term plan. and we got to make sure that every piece of that is put in place. >> and i think our position does put us -- being reliant on so much. >> i think if you look at our energy penetration of imports compared with other countries, because of the north sea we had a relatively good record. we got the interconnect tift with france. a potential interconnector with norway. if we make the most of shale gas, then as north sea gas runs down we'll have a new national resource. so when i look at our position in europe and look at, you know, how we linet we are on imports, i'm -- i think we're relatively secure position. we must keep up. that's why the relationship with gasa and others in terms of imported gas, the relationship with norway is fantastically important. making sure we get a decent contribution for renewables. >> could i bring up the other thing that is a really serious problem? we believe our country is facing potentially a very serious crisis of supply and competitiveness at this very moment in time we speak. and are you prepared to set aside the targets in the 2008 climate change act in order to get through this period? if you're unable to act unilaterally will you seek consensus with the major countries on behalf of the commitments? prime minister what i ask with that is, do you accept now in retrospect these targets, those set by the former government but were endorsed by you, were a huge mistake that threatens the severely damaged and indeed our already damaging europe competitive and growth prospect in years to come? >> prime minister, this view that he expressed may not be shared by -- >> of course. do questions in there. one is the climate change act framework can that work for us in the long term? my answer is yes, it can. we set these budgets. we have to make sure they're achievable and deliverable. i supported the chimet change act and i think we can make it work. the second part i think about the european targets which i think we are capable of meeting, i think you go back over the history and argue whether it was right to have as many specific targets, you might come to a different answer. europe is reviewing -- the e.u. is reviewing this at the moment about whether the specific targets are correct. but look the question i ask and i got the energy industries the national grid and everybody else around the table, i checked that our situation was robust, is are we content with the rules we have in place and everything we have in place that we are energy secure in terms of our short, medium and long-term future or are there any changes we need to make about decommissioning coal plants, bringing on gas more quickly or anything else and the answer i got was that the rules and regulations and capacity mechanisms are in place so we have the energy security that we need. so the question you put is very important. but i don't think either the climate change act or our own situation is one that we ought to be concerned with but one that i think we need to make major change. >> [inaudible] this is just not my view. it's head of the international energy agency based in paris and in london here today, we were discussing only the subject of deep, deep critical concern about europe's competitiveness. >> the european union -- they'll debate at the march council. they'll think very carefully about international competitiveness and prices. the united states has 10,000 shale gas wells. in europe we got about 100. and so i think we do need to think about the competitiveness picture. i completely agree with that. i don't think throwing out the window the concern about carbon emission reduction. what is the market in europe, that would be a very good thing. make sure we make use of shale gas. we are committed to cheap green energy and keep driving down the price of these new technologies. if we do all those things we can be green and competitive. >> we are almost out of time. i just want to take you back for a moment. to something you said about the maritime -- about the navy. i am reminded about what was said recently, unless we change our current course, not enough people. and the navy -- [inaudible] and i applaud what you said about the navy. >> well, i think -- to be fair what was said, if spending reductions went further, there would be a danger of what was called hollowing out. if we were in danger of that happening with what we have. the point i would make is that in the sdsr we made decisions with the chiefs of the defense staff around the table that we're about the future capabilities of the u.k. and a very strong argument was made, which i completely agree with, that we need to have a navy that is full spectrum, that's got everything from those submarines, the type 45's, to the future frigates and everything else. and that was a real priority. we've taken this gap in capability, which we'll refresh with the new carriers, and that's incredibly important. i don't see -- obviously want to do everything we can on value for money, on efficiency. i think if we do that i don't see any reason why we won't be able to properly run and crew these excellent -- these excellent assets. and also i think it's encouraging people to join the navy. the opportunities when you got this absolutely world first-class equipment that's running out of our ship-yards at the moment, it is terrific to encourage people to join up. >> can i applaud what you just said about the gap being replaced by new carriers? [laughter] >> you have about two minutes. >> [inaudible] in a public meeting, if the secretaries get their way and break scotland up from the kingdom, what are the national security implications of that? i think you stated publicly some of those implications but i wonder if you could elaborate a little bit more. >> in a nutshell, we are more secure together as well as more prosperous and all the rest of it. scotland makes an enormous contribution to the u.k.'s defense. i will be making a speech soon which is it's very important everyone in the rest of the united kingdom emphasizes how much we benefit of scotland staying in the united kingdom and that's something i feel passionate about. >> we're grateful, prime minister. and i think we got through most of the things we wanted to get through. i think you would have gathered that we are very anxious about the national security strategy, age stimulus that the next one will be better. one point we have made repeatedly is how much we would like to see it drawn outside experts and other views. without any disrespect to the people we have. and a couple of times it's been suggested that the government might consult this committee and we very much hope that it will and we will do our best to be cooperative and helpful. >> thank you. in the end, the government has got to own this document. so it's got to reflect our collective view. but the more input and also identifying gaps and weaknesses that your committee does frankly the better. >> very kind of you. thank you very much indeed. order, order. the meeting is now adjourned. >> well, the house is out. they finished their work yesterday. but the senate is in today. and they are expected to finish up work on a bill that would delay increases in federal flood insurance premiums. votes at 4:00 this afternoon. final vote at 1:50 eastern. they're in now. you can follow the debate on c-span2. here on c-span, coverage this afternoon of president obama who will be in nashville, tennessee, the second of two speeches he's delivering today. this is the follow-up to the state of the union address of the other night. the president talking about education. that will be live this afternoon at 5:20 eastern. also today, we're covering some of the comments from house republican members who are on their retreat in cambridge, maryland, on the eastern shore. developing strategy for 2014. leaders held a briefing this morning. here's a look. >> republicans have a great opportunity ahead of us this year and this retreat for our republican members is just the beginning. and in order to maximize our year, it's important that we show the american people that we're not just the opposition party, we're actually the alternative party. we've passed dozens of bills this year that would help the economy, would help improve education, improve energy production in america, mostly sitting over in the united states senate. but i think republicans have to do more to talk about the better solutions that we think we have that will help the american people grow their wages, have opportunities at a better job and clearly have a better shot at the american dream. listen, we know that the president's policies are not working. that's why we need to show the american people that the policies that we're in favor of really will improve their lives. one of the president's priorities is trade promotion authority. i've made clear over the last several months that the president needs to engage in this issue. this morning the senate majority leader said he was not in favor of trade promotion authority. trade promotion authority allows the administration to negotiate with our colleagues and allies around the world to expand trade. expanded trade means more opportunities for americans more exports. so the question is, is the president going to stand up and lead on this issue? we cannot pass this bill without his help. if this is one of his enpriorities, would you think he would have the senate majority leader working with him to pass trade promotion authority in order to expand opportunities for our fellow citizens. >> this is -- welcome to cambridge and thank you for making the trip. this is our opportunity as republicans to come together here at the beginning of the year and talk about 2014. we heard the president say that this should be a year of action and that is our goal also. we join the president in this effort to make this a year of action. and over the next couple of days, the republicans are going to be looking at a variety of issues that face the american people. largely focused on those public policy decisions that will help get people back to work. get our economy growing. whether it is policy related to health care and making sure that it is affordable and that it is not costing jobs, whether it's energy, whether it's immigration and the need to fix what is a broken immigration system and honor what has been a history of legal immigration in this country. also at the retreat this year we've brought in some innovative outside of the box d speakers. to provide a little creativity to our members, as we think about solving public policy decisions. they've really been inspiring and well received. and our goal is to be thinking of those ways that we can really impact people's lives, make their lives better through the initiatives that we move forward this year. >> good morning. thanks for joining us. the other night we heard from the president in his state of the union address. i think clearly he indicated that he wants to try and help folks who are struggling right now. i think many polls have suggested and i think all of us know that america's not working for a lot of this country right now. the health care is not working, too many americans are out of work the opportunity to advance for upward mobility is just not a reality for too many people. and we believe and i think the discussion at this retreat is going to be not just about opposing the policies that this president has been about over the last several years, and an america that's not working for people, but it is to craft an alternative for the people of this country so that we can see an america that works for everybody. the president did say the other night, he said, look, in america it's always been if you work hard and you're responsible, you get ahead. well we agree. we republicans have been talking about that for years and years. and so we want the president to work with us to try and solve that. to make sure that that promise of working hard and getting ahead, so that the next generation has it better than we do, is a reality for all americans. this leadership team has put forward and sent the president a letter and what this basesically says is, mr. president, in response to your suggestion the other night the house has already acted on several things that you mentioned in your speech. the president talked about the need for skills training. well, the house has passed a skills act. and it's sitting over in the senate and the majority leader there refuses to take it up. and the president says in his speech that he wants to call a commission to review all the federal programs having to do with worker training and skills. well, the g.a.o. has done that already. that's where we pulled our skills act from. so we said to the president in this letter, please sit down and work with us. if you've got other suggestions in this -- towards this bill, making it better, we're all ears. we want to help people. we also mentioned in here the issue he raised on regulating national gas. we've always been the party that said we want to maximize natural gas production in this country, to help diversify our energy sources, to help us compete in america and put people back to work. we want to do that. the president mentioned, you know dual-income families, working momsing difficulty having a job and raising family. we've already worked the -- passed the working family flexibility act. martha robey. that was hearse bill. why isn't the president -- that was her bill. why doesn't the president ask the senate to pick up that bill? we are ready to sit down if he's got suggestions on thats withal. the president also talked about federal research and the need for us to prioritize research and basic science. well, we republicans have already said we believe in that too. we want to solve the problem and unlock the mystery to curing disease. not only can we save lives, but we can help save cost as well. we just recently passed the gabriella miller kids first research afplgt why doesn't the president join us in that? if he's got more answers or more problems or more suggestions to that bill, we're all ears. so, with that i'm hopeful to have a really productive year. i know along with our speaker leadership team, thank you. >> good morning. cl hope you're all staying warm. the president's state of the union said he had a phone and a pen. i think the first phone call actually has to be to harry reid, to talk about trade. he might want to have to get his own party in line. the pen can be used as the leader just said. as he talked about places we could grow together. there's four bills that have already passed the house and that phone call with harry reid, he say, move those forward and i'll use the pen to sign those. this conference is unique. it's a time for us to come together to debate issues, to find -- define policy of where we want to find solutions but the speakers we've had are innovators. they're not looking at the concept of a short time frame. they're looking at what the world holds. will the next century be the american century? what are the challenges that we'll face from education to innovation to research to the fundamental of income economics of growing an economy? if you watch inside these conferences, a lot of debate, both sides, challenge and i think that's the direction at the end of this time that you'll see a clear direction of a policy that moves the country in the direction for the next century being the american century. >> we understand a whole lot of americans are hurting right now. thanks to the president's policies. higher taxes, more spending, more regulation. and we're unwilling to accept the status quo. that's why we are anxious this week to talk about our priorities that can get the economy moving, get people back to work, get more money in people's pockets. i look forward to having a discussion about tax reform. our proposal to lower the rates, simplify the code make it fairer, flatter simpler, close the loopholes and along with that comes millions of jobs. i think we'll talk about energy policy and our proposals opening the keystone pipeline, which is going to help put us on a path to energy independence and create 100,000 american jobs. and talk about our health care proposals. we need to do away with things like this 30-hour work requirement that puts 2.3 million people at risk of having their hours cut. [inaudible] >> mr. speaker, why do you think this might be a different moment for immigration? >> if you go back to the day after the 2012 election, i said it's time for the congress and the president to deal with this very important issue. this problem's been around for the last 15 years. it's been turned into a political football. i think it's unfair. so i think it's time to deal with it. but how we deal with it is going to be critically important. it's one thing to pass a law. it's another thing to have the confidence of the american people behind that law as you're passing it. that's why doing immigration reform in a commonsense, step-by-step manner helps our members understand the bite-size pieces and helps our constituents build more confidence that what we're doing makes sense. >> the path to citizenship is not included? >> we're going to talk to our members today about the principles that the leadership team has put together. i'm not going to get out any further. we're going to have the conversation today and i'm sure you'll hear all about it. >> [inaudible] >> i'm sure we'll hear about it today from our members. >> border security, what would that look like? >> you can't begin the process of immigration reform without securing our borders. and the ability to enforce our laws. everyone in our conference understands that's the first step in terms of meaningful reform of this problem. >> [inaudible] >> i don't know. we're going to have that conversation today. we're going to outline the principles and have the discussion. we'll make some decisions after that. >> but if you can't -- [inaudible] -- how do you show you have an alternative? >> we're going to outline the principles and i'm sure you'll have a chance to look at those as well. >> on the debt ceiling, do you envision any scenario where a debt ceiling increase passed the house with at least -- without at least some provision dealing with spending or debt or some other reform dealing with jobs -- >> we're going to have the conversation about the debt limit. we know what the obstacles are that we face. but, listen, we believe that defaulting on our debt is the wrong thing. we don't want to do that. and so we're going to have a conversation this afternoon about the way forward on this issue. >> do you expect to have an alternative health care bill on the floor this year? >> you know, we had an alternative when they passed obamacare. consisting of eight or nine points, which we thought would make the health care insurance system much more cost competitive than what we have today. it was rejected. that bill is still out there. but we've got other bills that have been introduced over the last year by various members of our conference. so we're going to have a conversation today about the way forward on obamacare. we still believe that obamacare is not good for the american people. it's not good for our constituents. it's raising cost, it's pushing people out of the health insurance business. they're losing their doctors, they're losing their access to quality care. and there has to be, in our view, a better way forward. so we'll have the conversation about what that alternative looks like and decisions about how we will deal with it. thank you all very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> we hope to bring you more coverage from the republican retreat in cambridge, maryland, later on as they spend two days developing their 2014 strategy. some news from the democratic side of the house this morning. that veteran california democrat henry waxman will end a 40-year run in the house by retiring at the end of the 113th congress. not running for re-election this year. he tells "politico," quote i think it's time to let somebody else come in and take on some of these fights. henry waxman retiring at the end of this year. the senate is in session today. the house out as of yesterday. the senate is taking up the flood insurance bill. thanks bill that would delay the increases in flood insurance premiums. final vote expected at 1:50 eastern and then likely also will finish work on the farm bill by the end of the week. the senate's on c-span2. president obama on the road following the state of the union two speeches today. at this hour niece milwaukee. later today in nashville, tennessee, talking about education. he'll be at mcgavock high school. we'll have live coverage at 5:20 eastern. >> this is where the clintons lived when they were professors at fayetteville. after hillary's first year of teaching here, bill was driving her down this road to go to the airport and they saw the house and it was for sale and hillary pointed at the house and said, that's a cute house. and bill took her to the airport and picked her up from the airport about a month later and said, i bought your dream house, you have to marry me and live with me in it. and that was in fact the fourth time he had proposed. >> there were nine people at the wedding. it was a very small, intimate ceremony. their wedding announcement made notable mention of the fact that hillary was retaining her own name. bill wasn't bothered by this however when they told virginia she gasped and when they told hillary's mother, she cried. fayetteville was the place where they really settled in. they really thought they had arrived. they'd gotten married, they had bought a house, they had successful jobs as law professors. they finished law school. so they'd kind of reached a plateau where they'd achieved a lot of things that they'd set goals for in life. >> watch our program on first lady hillary clinton at c-span.org/firstladies or see it saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. live monday, our series continues with first lady laura bush. the olympic games in sochi get under way next week and the heritage foundation yesterday held a discussion looking at u.s.-russia relations. senator ted cruz of texas one of those speaking at the event, accusing the obama administration of allowing russia to expand its influence in the world. this is an hour and a half. >> all right, if everyone will take their seats. we already have one panelist doing interviews, but you've already talked to him so you can talk to him when he gets here. ok. to anyone who just came in on the streaming video, welcome to the heritage foundation. i'm dr. steve bucci. i'm the director of the allison center for foreign and national security policy. we have part two of our russia event today. we retreated a little earlier to a great trio of speakers who laid down a foundation as to what's going on in russia and what it may mean. now we have four more speaks that are are going to go a little bit shorter than the others and then get a little more time for q&a, i hope. i'm going to give very short introductions and then let them use up the time for their actual remarks. first we're going to have the vice president of the american foreign policy council in washington, d.c. he has been an advisor to both the intelligence community and to the department of defense and he's written numerous books but i'm just going mention two of them because they sort of apply to this particular subject. his earliest book was dismantling tyranny transitioning beyond totalitarian regimes. his most recent book picked up the subject and it's called "implosion: the end of russia and what it means for merks." so very timely to have him here. we also have vladimir who is the senior policy advisor at the institute of modern russia. he has served as the washington bureau chief of television and is a member of the coordinating council of the russian opposition. in between them is donald jensen and i surprised him because i didn't tell i was going to start. you're down there at the end. donald is a resident fellow at the center for transatlantic relations. but he is a long, long time member of radio free europe, radio liberty. he is a frequent commentator on radio and television in the u.s. russia, canada, europe and the middle east. so he's got quite a deep view of this area for a long, long time. and then you met earlier my colleague here at heritage, dr. cohen, who is our russia-eurasia specialist, senior fellow. he's been here since 1992. got his education both at tus university but also many years in israel and he is our major commentator on all things russia, the former soviet union , both their politics, economics, energy and he is our lead man for dealing with the issues that have been coming up , most closely related to sochi. with that i'm going to stop, we're going to speak for approximately 10 minutes, i'll give you maybe a couple minutes over if you have a little too much. then i'll start waving my arms and we'll go from this end down and end with dr. cohen and then go into q&a. >> thank you very much. it's always a pleasure. to be at heritage. always a pleasure to come back and talk. this is perhaps not the cheeriest subject to talk about . in part because i tend to have a very pessimistic view of the sochi olympics and sort of all of the security dynamics that are relating to it for a number of reasons, which i'll mention. first of all, i think it's necessary to posit that the security situation in sochi voubding the olympics is tenuouses at best. the chair of the house intelligence committee recently commented that the security environment in sochi is the most fraud, the most difficult and the most volatile that he's seen in his memory. there's a reason for. that i think he's absolutery right. but it has to do with a number of systemic dynamics that have been going on in russia for a long time but are really only now coming to the fore. we know the olympics are in the crosshairs of russia's most organized and most capable islamist group. this is an organization known as the caucus emirate. it is an al qaeda affiliate. it is an organization which has also articulated a vision that is far greater than simply the liberation of chechnya and those areas. it has articulated the liberation of those areas of the russian federation as a prelude to the establishment of a central asian caliphate. so, in a very real sense, they have coupled themselves to the larger al qaeda ideology of sort of the expansion of islamist and islam in various parts of the world. in particular, the emir has talked and there are rumors that he has exited the political stage courtesy of the russian special forces, but i think reports of his death are going to turn out to be greatly exaggerated, as mark twain would say. when he was alive and kicking, if he's not anymore, he talked a great deal about the sochi olympics are satanic games because they are dancing on the bones of his ancestors or competing on the bones of his ancestors and called for attacks targeting the olympics. but at the core, this isn't so much an ideological play as it is a pragmatic and opportunistic one. we saw at the start of this already several weeks ago a, with the attacks that took place near simultaneous attacks that took place on a bus and in the train station, main train station. in part because the city is an important transport hub that will be ferreying people to the olympics. and it was a place that was, up until that time outside of the security zone that the russian government had established. so it was vulnerable. it was low-hanging fruit. but beyond that, you see reports coming out of sochi as conveyed by western news agencies about desperate hunts on the part of security services for black widows, who are the spouses of islamic militants who have been killed in terrorist attacks, that are now in play. there's at least one that is believed to be in sochi. i suspect the number is far higher. but it shows you that the security environment is very volatile it's one that frankly should be keeping russian policymakers up at night. there has been an overwhelming governmental response to this. putin has established a security corridor spanning 1,500 miles. so there are mobility restrictions on everybody coming to sochi. but some people more than others. including islamic communityings in the region -- communities in the region. there are transportation choke points. there is a massive saturation of security forces into the region. 40,000 troops have been officially deployed. there are more that are related not to the russian military, they're related to the security services that have been altogether riced to travel to the region as well -- authorized to travel to the region as well. but the fundamental problem, and i think this is necessary to understand, in the context of a response to what they see as a potential security threat in sochi, but the russian government really hasn't done much to address the underlying issues that have created the security threat in the first place. and what we're talking about here is, first of all, there has been a colossal dereliction of duty. fiscal and political duty on the part of the russian government in building the sochi olympics. putin, when he lobbied successfully 6 1/2 years ago to have sochi be the site of the olympics, he beat out a site in south korea, he beat out a site in austria and he did so because he promised he was going to spend an exorbitant amount on the olympics but the exorbitant amount that he cited to the olympic committee was $12 billion. the price tag -- right. the price tag for the olympics now is way higher. it is, depending on your estimates, anywhere from $50 billion on up. i've seen estimates as high as $55 billion. at least 1/3 that have money, according to reports from credible russian observers, has been lost to corruption. the result is that the basic, basic things that needed to be done to get sochi ready and to get sochi secure for the olympics simply haven't been done. for example, comparatively modest investments in infrastructure, rail infrastructure, air infrastructure, that would have allowed transport hubs to accommodate a greater volume of passengers simply weren't done. the reason the terrorist group targeted the place they did was because it is a major transit corridor to get to sochi and it's one that retains its importance because there haven't been ainslary roads built, ainslary means of transport built. thought exercise for of awl of you if you're interested is to go on the internet and google flying distance and driving distance from vulgaagrad to sochi. as the car drives it's 615 miles. because the terrain is very difficult, because there are mountains, because you have to sort of loop around. it is a testament to the fact that there wasn't a lot of thought given beyond the prestige and the glory of sochi itself. there wasn't a lot of thought given to the practicality that would involve hosting an international event like this. and there certainly weren't any investments. so what is the strategic significance of this? i think that there's a couple of really important takeaways. the first is, for my money, that the dominant russian martive that russia has fought and, contrary to the west, russia has fought and won its own war on terror, frankly that's pretty premature. and tactically, the kremlin has some basis for saying so. if you look at the state department's annual reports on international terrorism, they're called the country reports on terrorism you'll find that in terms of terrorist attacks in russia, 2009 was the high water mark. there were close to 800 incidents in the russian federation. most of them in the north caucuses, in that year alone. last year -- i'm sorry, in 2012, which is the last year for which they have completed statistics, the number was less than 200. so russia is winning its war on terror. but what these statistics don't account for is that strategically it's not. strategically the radical islam inge threat in russia is still -- islamic threat in russia is still resilient. it's actually expanding. and it's changing. it's me taft sizing in terms of its tactics and volatility. you see this through for example, the use of female suicide bombers which is a comparatively new phenomenon. you see this with the use of different targeting techniques, different explosives. and most of all, this is reinforced by negative demographic trends in russia as a whole. the back drop to this is while russia's population is declining, the russians in -- the muslims in russia are faring pretty well. they make up 16% of the overall population but over the decade one in five russians is going to be muslim and beyond that you get closer and closer to a parity. as a result what you have is you have an underclass which is, as you heard the previous panel talk about, discriminated against by the russian government, there is not a real cohesive strategy on the part of the russian government to integrate, to empower, to provide economic opportunities to, but it's also a community that, as it's being deprived of opportunity, it's expanding and it's also radicalizing. so this is the fundamental problem that the russian government has and unfortunately the trend line of the last several years has been that they've -- [inaudible] when the kremlin looks at the numbers of terrorist attacks and the decline from nearly 8 nun 2009 to less than -- 800 in 2009 to less than 200 a year and a half ago, it can says that winning. but this hard-power strategy is i think only a tactical success. it's a strategic failure because it's failed to take into account the dynamics that are taking place within the russian muslim population. that gets us to sort what have we can expect to see. i think all of us share the view that we fervently hope that nothing untoward happens at the olympics, that the olympics are safe and secure, that there are no violations of rights, that there are no terrorist attacks and no criminality. but if you are looking at it through the "prism" of a strategic analyst, you have to understand that the reason that house intelligence committee chairman is so concerned is because he understands that the islamic threat in russia is resilient, he understands that it's dynamic and and he understands that it's opportunistic which means if you're the caucuses emirate, you want if you have the ability to do so, to make a play at the olympics. for two reasons. first of all, because the ability to carry off a terrorist attack in the midst of this massive security this massive injection of kremlin infrastructure and kremlin restrictions on mobility is the blow to the perceived invulnerability of the kremlin. it's a prestige killer. and on the other hand, because when the kremlin devotes so much attention to sochi, it leaves itself vulnerable elsewhere. which means it's very possible that a terrorist attack in russia we think, will be directed at sochi. but it may not be directed at so muchy. it may be directed elsewhere. people -- at sochi. it may directed elsewhere. there have been attacks all over, including moscow. this is a target-rich environment, particularly for islamists who more and more are migrating from the north caucuses into the russian hardline. i'll leave it there but i think there are real reasons for concern about the security environment and they're because of larger systemic issues. thank you. >> thank you. donald. >> thank you. i'm used to him being on the other side, handing me little messages. [laughter] thank you for the invitation. it's always a pleasure to speak here at heritage and thank you to mr. bucci ilan, good to see all of you again. i was asked to talk about corruption in sochi which is a very interesting question to say the least. we have a discussion around coffee yesterday in my office about what's the most corrupt institution in the world. the ukrainian government, the russian government the international olympic committee, organized soccer federation, we're willing to entertain a debate online at any time. i'd like to say when i think of these olympic games, going back to when i was a child, there's a stereotype, a simple aim g -- image. the seriousness and effectiveness, elegance quiet dignity, kind of an arrival of california's winter destination. sochi will stand for something quite different. security concerns, human rights ryeslations and i vine anybody to look at what's going on in the north caucuses for that. and third, massive massive corruption, perhaps at the extent to even dwarf the international soccer federation. it's important before i begin to remember to change context between 2007, when the kremlin bribed the international olympic committee to get the games, and today. then putin wanted to buy himself into the club of world leaders. he was much more interested in engaging with the west, engaging with international institutions in a more constructive way. today of course he's trying to construct in his own mind at least an alternative civilization. and reject western values as being deck dent, that has the so-calledure asian dream or project. --ure aaron --ure asian dream or project. in the last few months at least, overlaying an ideological set of values which somehow betrays the east -- portrays the east trying to make a run and elsewhere as more something but not western in the least which has become decadent. hence the focus on the lgbt issues at the games. i want to say a few words about corruption at -- corruption at the games. first is the nature of the olympic progress in sochi. it is huge and includes, for those of you who are familiar with arguments about building football stadiums or baseball stadiums in the u.s. a lot of ancillary infrastructure issues. there is a palace -- i almost said palace, a residence for putin, there are stadiums that will rarely be used after this. there's also a fantasy of this. the mayor of sochi said there are no gay people in sochi. which may be the cause but most likely they are elsewhere or driven out or still there. second there's of course the fact that behind the nature of this project is of course a lot of what those of us who are students of soviet history see a lot of, which is a very weak a infrastructure background. i have a quote here from an australian journalist yesterday who talked about the dodgy construction, poor accommodations questionable employment conditions. the toilet flushes in muddy water, there is no hot water, the shower flowers -- floors are covered with dirt and mud. and so forth and so forth. and some of you may have seen the two toilets next to each other last week going viral. perhaps all this would be cleaned up in the next week and a half. but these things are vulnerable to a lot of forces. and finally of course, the whole project is highly corrupt. i recommend $50 billion $55 billion, whatever it is i highly recommend the project that our colleagues put together a few years ago there's corruption website up in this week, and it's huge. we're talking about bribes, costover runs, work delays, poor construction and so forth and so forth. on a scale that would -- that dwarfs really what we see in the west. but three things are noteworthy about this corruption, i think. first is that there's been very little debate about this in russia until very recently. the duma and whoever provides a lot of the money and it's not clear in many cases, there's been very little public discussion about it. second would be that the interaction between government private business and law enforcement authority is completely blurred. if you try to look at where the money comes from, it's either the budget or the v.e.b. bank or the v.e.b. bank guaranteeing loans and so forth. it's a blend of power and money that we see in many other things about putin's russia. and third i would say, and this is something that's not covered very often at all, the corruption and money and issues related this goes down very much to the local level. so the problem is not just at the top. the top is too much of everything going down to the project, to the very local levels. which has implications for guaranteeing the effectiveness of the regime itself. we can talk more about this. excuse me. if recent weeks putin has sort of acknowledged that there might be a little problem with some cost overruns. the chamber talked about mistakes were made and it cost too much. as if it was building a new redskins stadium. which is not the case. putin himself talked a little bit about it in the last couple weeks. why? because the issue of corruption in russia has a great deal of residence, even with the growing number of dismaid citizens. this comes in the context of a more broad anticorruption campaign where putin is trying to show that he's doing something about it. putting hises lieutenants in charge of the anticorruption campaign cracking down on a few people that makes the campaign look serious, and of course over the past 14 months or so, trying to get some of his oligarch friends to bring some of their overseas assets home. i suspect the reason has less to do with cleaning up the government than making them less vulnerable to western law enforcement authorities. i'm at about eight minutes now. i think it's very important, something we haven't talked about very much, what happens after sochi. sochi in many ways is a temporary stop on a number of processes going on in the system which i think will bear further retention. number one, would be there have been a number of carefully designated signs that putin is liberalizing the system. which he isn't particularly very much at all. but also the sochi events may have even postponed a more overt and serious russian dealing with the ukrainian situation because the russians don't want to look on the eve of the games that things are happening that they're trying to orchestrate in a significant way. but after the sochi games, of course, there remain these problems. the systemic corruption, the fact that what will the attitude of the west be toward putin after the games? there is a g-8 meeting in june, i believe, which will be at sochi. there will be an invitation to president obama extended to meet and that's already been talked about by some russian officials. so this is a chance for the united states to be up front once the games are out of the way, much more assertive and it's a chance for putin to see -- to be tested about whether his commitment to an anticorruption campaign has really any meat there at all and i suspect it doesn't. >> thank you very much. >> thank you very much. thank you to the heritage foundation for hosting this very timely event. as we're now just a week away from the official opening of the 22nd winter olympics games in sochi. as has been mentioned both in the morning panel and by my colleagues here now, it has been the most or it will be the most important -- the most expensive winter olympic games in the history and it costs more than the combined price tag of all winter olympics games since the inception in 1924. and i think the estimates provided by my fellow panelists today are somewhat conservative because in the report that you don't mention, of course it's by russian opposition, which will be presented for the first time in the english language this week in washington, d.c., on thursday, it was estimated that up to $30 billion was stolen during the construction of olympic projects. only stolen. that's not the price. that's only the corruption part of it. also this week our own institute, institute of modern russia, is launching its own sochi anticorruption project which is called sochi 2014. which provides information, detailed information on 26 specific different olympic objects in and around sochi based on exclusive information done for us by investigative journalists based inside sochi. and all the corruption and abuse that that entailed. and of course it goes beyond just financial abuse. there's numerous cases of the mistreatment of construction workers, mistreatment of local residents, severe environmental and architectural abuse and similar unfortunate incidences. but i think it's really important, as the world focuses its attention on russia, as we approach the sochi games, to look beyond sochi and to look at the overall land escape, the overall situation in the host country. and that situation and that landscape of course includes elections that fail to meet the most basic democratic standards where opposition parties and candidates are routinely barred from the ballot, where despite the promises made after the 2011-2012 mass protests opposition parties continue to face tremendous pressure from the kremlin of the just two weeks ago a party has received its third denial of registration from the ministry of justice, which is equivalent to a denial of ballot access. and in the next couple of weeks, russia's real registered opposition party, the republican party of russia, will face a kremlin instigated takeover attempt. of course there's a landscape that includes kremlin control and kremlin censorship over every single national television channel, a situation that includes tremendous pressure and harassment of governmental organizations. russian n.g.o.'s are faced to accept a slanderous label of foreign agents or faced -- face forced disillusion. the voting monitoring legislation which is of course the biggest problem -- the biggest troublemaker for the regime, which was forcibly shut down by the russian justice ministry last summer for refusing to accept itself as a foreign agent which of course it is not. and it is a landscape that includes today dozens of political prisoners, of people who sit in jails and under house arrest and in pretrial detention centers for the only, quote, crime of having crossed the path of the kremlin regime. despite the high profile pardons at the end of the last year and of course the release of russia's best known political prisoner for more than a decade last week of another prisoner, and despite the partial amnesty for some political prisoners including green peace in december there remain dozens of people who are in russian prisons on politically motivated grounds. a man said two days after his own release, you should not see me as a symbol that there are no political prisoners left in russia. i am asking to you see me as a symbol of thests of civil society may lead to the release, even of those people whose release was not expected by anyone. we must continue to do all we can to ensure there are no more political prisoners in russia or any other country, end of quote. at the end of the last week, the institute of modern russia has launched a new project. it includes a full list published on our website iamrussia.com, 40 people who are dessnatesed as political prisoners in russia today. this is not our designation. this is a designation made by russia's most respected human rights organization founded a quarter century ago. a quarter century ago this week in fact. the aim of this project is to bring attention, including global attention, to the plight of those people and to raise awareness and to kind of try to go to this emotional tone that if you take hostages and then you release some of them, then your problems are solved and the situation has improved. unfortunately despite the limited amnesty and the pardons, which of course are extremely positive developments, the basic situation remains unchanged. this list of 40 people is based on very stringent, very detailed criteria that have been worked out by memorial. and it's certainly not an expansive list. as the leaders themselves say, there are probably more than 40 political prisoners in russia. in fact, this list does not include, for example a man who is in prison now or rather in pretrial defention for having taken part in a december 31 rally in support of freedom, because all the legal procedures have not been completed yet, he's not on the list. and neither on the list is an environmental activist, a prominent critic of the abuses and corruption of sochi olympics who was give an three-year jail term for writing a political article on a corruption government official. his appeal is coming in the next few days and i think it's really important that people in and civil society activists focus their atext on this case. but -- their attention thon case. but this list of -- attention on this case. but this list includes cases that are beyond doubt. it includes one of the prisoners who was sentenced to forced psychiatric treatment in the first case of punitive psychiatry since the days of the soviet regime. it includes a russian left-wing opposition activist who in a true throwback was kidnapped on the sovereign territory of ukraine, force inly brought back to russia and fortured for two days -- tortured for two days until he signed a confession. and of course this list includes about 1/3 of the political prisoners on the list are the prisoners, people whose only quote crime including taking part in a peaceful protest against putin's inauguration after a rigged and falsified presidential election in the spring of 2012. as the soviet style show trial cases have neared an end, they've demanded five to six-year prison terms for those prisoners and the verlander is coming out in the next 10 days. the charge they face is riots. despite the fact that the kremlin's own human rights council, the russian presidential human rights council, has concluded that no riots took place. while an independent -- public independent investigation commission, which included prominent respected academics experts in russia, including a prominent economist, this commission after going through hours of video evidence, hundreds of photographs, hours of eyewitness testimonies, concluded that what happened in the square was a deliberate provocation by the authorities, by law enforcement in order to create a pretext for a subsequent crackdown on the opposition on civil society which is what we saw with a slate of oppressive laws passed after the square incident that we heard about this morning. so, keep in mind the situation with political prisoners. i think would you only be fair to agree with the sentiment of human rights watch which described the situation with human rights in russia today as the worst since the soviet era a, end of quote. i think it is difficult to disagree with that assessment. but i think we would also be amess if we did not talk about -- amiss if we didn't talk about a different aspect of what's happening in russia today and that's tangible change in society and in public attitudes that we've seen in the last couple of years. we've seen in the last two years, since december of 2011, tens of thousands of people come out on the streets of moscow, st. petersburg and other large russian cities in what were the largest street demonstrations in russia since august 1991. protesting against election fraud, the corruption, the injustice, the deception the repression of the putin regime. and the backbone of this new emerging protest movement has been russia's growing upper middle classes, the more active and young and professional part of society. even according to the official results of the 2012 so-called presidential elections, putin lost majority support and fell below the 50% line in moscow, in other towns an cities across russia. these are the official results put out by the kremlin. other results showed that only 22% of russians want puten to remain as president beyond the end of -- putin to remain president beyond the end of his term. of course justice this -- just this fall in september we saw a round of regional elections in russia where the opposition candidate received nearly 30% of the vote even according to the official results at moscow. where opposition candidates won in many local and municipal successes. the election put a rest to the long-time myth that the russian opposition is a marginal group with no public support and that apparently there's no alternative to mr. putin. russian society is changing. attitudes are changing and it is of course only up to russian citizens and to them alone to affect democratic changes in their country. but i think if the democracies of the west, of europe and north america, want to show that these values of democracy and human rights and civil society and the rule of law of which they talk are more than just words on paper and they actually mean something, i think they should not remain silent. they should tell the crooks and the abusers, those who violate their rights and steal the money of russian citizens, that they are not welcome in the nations of the democratic west. and do this by passing and fully implementing measures. and they should also do this by refusing to lend putin's regime, the international legitimacy and the international respect that it so desperately craves and in my view does not deserve. it's clear that for putin the sochi olympics is conscious it's not about sports, it's about a show of respect from the free world for him. as a leader of an equal standing. it's encouraging that he will not get that show of respect, at least not to the exent that he wanted. after we heard prime minister cameron, president obama and many other world leaders indicating that there they will not go either to the opening or closing ceremonies of putin's olympics in sochi. and it's heartening to see the success of the silly campaign which was initiated last fall with the help of members of the european parliament and with strong support from the russian opposition and russian civil society in favor of political nonparticipation by the leaders of the free world of western democracies in putin's olympic show in sochi. and i think that is exactly the right message to be sending both to the kremlin and a message of solidarity to those dozens of political prisoners in russian federation and to all russian citizens who want a democratic change and a democratic future for their country. thank you very much. once again thank you for holding this panel. i'll be happy to take part in the discussion afterwards. >> thank you steve. thank you for the panelists and for all of you to brave the weather, russian weather, and come here for this exciting conference. let's do a quick mental exercise. let's take russia as a company or a brand and evaluate it on its performance on the eve of sochi. the security of operations is questionable. i sincerely hope that no attacks will happen, no attacks will be successful, i pray that no human life will be lost or hurt. but just the cost of security for this operation is exorbitant. and this is not a one-off this is an ongoing security threat for not just sochi but for any other large-scale event or operation in russia. secondly corruption. we already heard that the costs of the olympics were reported at $12 billion with the infrastructure that needed to be developed to accompany it is between $50 billion and $60 billion and there are some analyses and reports from the political opposition and others that $30 billion may be lost to corruption. now, what you take in a situation like that as a countermeasure to embezzlement or fraud is compliance. well, let's see what the compliance reports are. there were high-level reports recently that they looked into allegations of fraud and embezzlement and no actionable findings were found by those who checked. well, to me this is just a failure of compliance. so if you take this altogether and look at russia as a brick, which it is an emerging market granted an emerging market with nuclear weapons, if you look at russia as an energy in natural resources play, and extrapolate lessons learned from sochi, you recognize the cost of doing business in russia and this is also an opportunity for the russian leadership, an opportunity to improve, an opportunity to open up an opportunity to boost the clients, an opportunity to engage the oppositions, the opposition, because by the way the opposition that my friend vladimir his party and many others in russia represent, this is enlightened, democratic and sane opposition. these are not the extreme left and extreme nationalists and racists that you see engaged in violence and screaming racist slogans in the streets of moscow. so, unfortunately you do not discern beyond the laudable release of political prisoners, the unmentionable group and others you do not discern any effort to broaden the social consensus, the political consensus. you have an ongoing and tough confrontation between christian orget docks slavic russians and muslim russians that my colleague touched upon. this is a serious systemic problem, it didn't start yesterday, it started over 200 years ago when russia gradually brought north caucuses under its military and administrative control and the problems persisted ever since and resulted in ethnically cleansed parts of north caucuses. the czechists were the chechen and others were loaded into cattle cars and sent to north kazakhstan and central asia. under stalin, the tatars were equally ethnically cleansed by the stalin regime. these things have an interesting tendency to not disappear and not go away. what we have today is terrifying and despicable as it may be, terrorism against a civilian population, has its roots in russian history. i have a paper on the
incarcerations -- thank you. life 4r6 folks can get better jobs. pay more taxes. it's a win-win for everybody. last year i asked congress help states make high-quality prekindergarten available to every 4-year-old in america. [applause] now, the good news is 30 states decided to raise some pre-k funding on their own and school districts like this one have plans to open dedicated pre-k centers with space for hundreds of young kids. and we did get a little help from congress earlier this month. but while we got a little help, we need more help. because even with the efforts of your superintendent and folks working hard in this school direct, there's still going to be some kids who could use the help that aren't getting it. so congress, i would like to see them act more boldly than they are. but while congress decides if it's willing to give every child that opportunity, i'm not waiting. so -- [applause] we're going to bring business leaders from all across the country and philanthropists from all across the country who are willing to help work with school districts, mayors, governors, to make sure more young people every single year are getting access to the high-quality pre-k that they need. that's going to be a project over the next three years. technology is not the sole answer for a child's education. having a good teacher is what is most important than having great parent -- and having great parents is even more important than that. but in this modern 21st century economy, technology helps. it can be a powerful tool to leverage good teaching. so last year i pledge to connect 99% of our students to high-speed broadband over five years. and with the help of the federal communications commission, f.c.c., we're making a down payment on that goal by connecting more than 15,000 schools, 20 million students over the next 2 years so that there's wireless in every classroom and we're going to hit that goal of -- they're not going to be a child in a school in america that does not have the kind of wireless connection that allows them to stream in the information they need that can power their education. that's going to be a priority. we have got -- and by the way, we have companies like apple, microsoft, sprint, verizon, they're going to help students and teachers use the latest tools to accelerate learning. now, we also need to encourage more schools to rethink not just what they teach but how they teach it. [applause] and that's where -- that's where what you're doing here is so important. if you're a student here, you're experience is a little different from students at other high schools. starting in 10th grade, you get to choose from one of four academies that allow you to focus on a specific subject area. local businesses are doing their part by giving students opportunities to connect the lessons you learned in the classroom with jobs that are actually out there to be filled. so students in the academy of business and finance, they're operating their own credit union here at the school and doing some work in a real one over the summer. if you choose digital design and communication -- [applause] you get to spend time in a tv studio designed by local business partner. if you choose the aviation and transportation academy -- [applause] -- you get to learn how to operate a 3d printer and work on your very own airplane. that's pretty cool. i did not get my own plane until was 47 years old. ut -- that's a nice plane. [laughter] but -- but the idea is simple but powerful. young people are going to do better when they're excited about learning and they're going to be more excited if they see a connection between what they're doing in the classroom and how it is applied. if they see a connection between the math that i'm doing here, this connects to the business that is going on out there. the graphic design i'm doing here, i am learning now what that means in terms of marketing or working for a company that actually get paid to do this. which means i might get paid to do it. and i'm seeing people who may open up for me entire new career options that i didn't even realize. so that makes words on a page exciting and real and tangible. and then schools like this one teach you everything you need to succeed in college but because of that hands-on experience, you're able to create pathways to make sure that folks also are able if they choose not to go to a four-year institution potentially get a job sooner and it's working. over the past nine years, graduation rate here has gone up 22%. 22%. well, last year tenants across the district, which includes 12 academy high schools was higher than ever. thousands of students are getting a head start on their futures years before many of their peers do and it's great for businesses because they're developing a pool of workers who already have the skill that's they're looking for. every community is different. with different needs, different approaches. but if nashville can bring schools and teachers and businesses and parents together for the sake of our young people, than other places can. [applause] that's why my administration is already running a competition to redesign high schools through employer partnerships that combine a quality education with real world skills and hands-on learning. i want to encourage more high schools to do what you are doing. that's why -- [applause] that's why we're also in the process of shaking up our system of higher education so when you graduate from high school, ready to succeed in college, it's easier to afford college. we're also working to help more students pay off their student loan debt once they graduate. [applause] quality education shouldn't be something that those other kids get. it's something that all kids get. absolutely. the other day i heard the story f a recent graduate here named sarah santiago. where is sarah? [applause] i want to -- i hope i'm not embarrassing sarah. i'm going to tell her story. sarah's parents came to america from guatemala and she struggled her freshman year. i think she will admit, in her own words she was one of the bad kids. she doesn't look that bad. i was bad. [laughter] you might not have been that bad. but probably you weren't taking your studies that serious. and then she took a broadcasting ass with a teacher named barclay randle. [applause] there is mr. randle right there. go ahead and wave, mr. randle. [applause] and mr. randle's over there with the press now because some of his students are covering this event. they're doing some reporting. but -- [applause] but when sarah was in mr. randle's class, helped her discover the passion for film making. and pretty soon sarah's grades started to improve. so she won school's best editing award. then she got an internship with country music television, one of our business partners. [applause] and then she was accepted to the prestigious savannah college of art and design. and she gives credit to mr. randle for this. she says, mr. randle gave me a second chance. he saw things i never saw in myself. he's the person who helped me change. [applause] now, giving every student that chance, that's our goal. it's what america's all about. we work and study heart and chase our individual success but we are also pulling for each other and we've got each other's backs and as a nation, we make the investment in every child as if they are our children because we're saying to ourselves, if every child successful, the world my child grows up in will be more successful. the america my child grows up in will be more successful. [applause] so there are lessons that we have to absorb as a nation. where we can, we have to start early. get the kids when they are 3, 4 years old because not every parents got the same resources and we have to help them get the good start for that child. we've got to make sure that we are supporting our teachers because they are the most critical ingredient in a school. [applause] and we've got to -- [applause] we've got to show them how important they are. which means giving them the professionalism they need, giving them the support that they need, and giving them the pay that they need. [applause] we've got to make sure that our high schools engage our children and not every child is going to go on the same path at the same speed. but we can restructure how our high high schools operate to make make sure every child is engaged. the more we can link them to real hands-on experience, the more likely they are to be engaged. and we've got to make college affordable for every young person in america. but we can do all of that, we ill still be missing something if we don't capture the spirit mr. randle showed with sarah. that investment in our children, nothing is more important. and it doesn't cost any money. the initial spirit, the spirit then can express itself by putting more resources into schools that need it. but that spirit that every child matters, that is something we can all embrace. we help each other along in good times and bad and if america pulls together now around our young people, if we do our part to make sure every single child can go as far as their passions and hard work will take them, then we will keep the american dream alive not just for jury renration but -- your generation but for generations to come. that's my goal. i hope it is yours too. thank you, nashville. great job! thank you! ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> as president obama wraps up a two-day road trip, a headline in "the washington post" -- republicans make overtures to middle class and encounter obama democrats. as president obama traveled the country, republicans were racing to prove they, too, have a plan to ee leaveate middle class anxiety. in the past few days alone, the new senior g.o.p. senators unveiling alternatives to obama's health care law that offers a conservative vision for covering uninsured. house budget committee chairman paul ryan summoned experts to capitol hill to discuss new ways to help the poor and senator marco rubio proposed making childless adults eligible for a lucrative tax credit. and the story in "the washington post" says the change for republicans is convincing voters their newfound concern is sincere. house republicans at a yearly retreat in maryland, this afternoon releasing principles for immigration reform. starting at 8:00 eastern on c-span, a group of g.o.p. members under the age of 40 take part in a press conference at the retreat. then on c-span2, the seventh energy committee holds a hearing on restrictions of crude oil experts. and c-span 3, american indians give its annual state of the nation address. british prime minister david cameron testified today before a joint parliamentary committee on several issues. he spoke about the government's response to syria, the british defense budget and new decision to focus on the asia-pacific region. this is 1:15. >> welcome people to this afternoon session and say at once we hope and anticipate there may be a vision before 4:00. if there is, i will adjourn the committee for a few minutes. but hopefully there will not be. welcome, prime minister. >> thank you. we have been looking forward to seeing on a quiet thursday. turns out not so quy the but you're most welcome nevertheless. as i hope you are very committed and supported against the national security strategies and national security council and we want to see if we can contribute constructively to its work. taken evidence from the members of the committee and adviser and now am very anxious to hear from you. will you tell us first what you hope to gain by having the ational security strategy? >> what we thope gain is make sure we analyze the threats to britain, analyze the opportunities for our country better and we plan across government better and we make better decisions. and i think that i would say sort of 3 1/2 years in, i think it's been a real success because you're bringing together the relevant departments, considering national security from a domestic perspective as well as overseas perspective. you're making sure that the great systems of defense and foreign officers play together rather than play separately. and i think it's proven itself across a number of subjects. i'm hugely enthusiastic about this reform. i think it works very well. i think it joins up prime minister, foreign secretary, chancellor secretary and others in a way perhaps they have not been joined up in the past and i hope it's a reform that will endure. >> you said it enables you to look at domestic and other matters. our impression is it's been very foreign policy oriented so far. >> i would argue it's been a reasonable mixture. i've got the figures with me. if we take say 2011, you have 36 n.s.c.'s. we covered 50 foreign policy topics, 9 domestic policy issues, 14 security-related issues like counterterrorism and defense. i think there's an argument to say it could do more domestic subjects and hope sect it always keen we discuss more. but the point i would make, when you're discussing the foreign policy subjects, you have got the minister responsible for security around the table as well as the head of mi-5 and other relevant officials. i think that's hugely helpful. in two different ways. if you're talking about syria as a foreign policy issue, you obviously want the home secretary there and our counterterrorism experts to worry about the blowback from syria and radicalization and terrorism that's being fostered there. that's important. and also if you think about our relations with china and how improved our relations with china, it's very good you have gotten a trade minister, the chance of the foreign secretary and expertise of the foreign office but also have the home secretary to think about things like visas and border access and all of those things, which are an important part of our relationship. so i think we could shift to do some more domestic subjects but i think the balance is pretty good and when we're dealing with foreign policy subjects, we take domestic aspect seriously. >> at the outset you did, with the new government you did national security strategy, spending review and defense review sort of alongside each other. was the intention that the national security strategy set the context for the other reviews? >> yes. we d. as you say, the new government, did all three things together. strategic strategy, defense review and, of course, comprehensive spending review and we did them all together. the national security strategy helped set the context for what you want to do in terms of defense. i know we have seen some of the work on your committee. people are very keen the strategies and defense and then and only then do you consider resources issues. i think in the difficult times in which we live, i think that will be difficult. i think you do have to consider what is affordable alongside what is desirable. i think that's just realistic. but as you say strategy should inform the defense decisions that we make. >> i take the point that you're making but you must know it has been subjected -- suggested, the defense review particular, was written holy by budgetarry and not strategic consideration. >> i would reject that completely. the defense review was about how we should configure our defense forces given britain's place in the world, given our foreign policy and security policy, objectives. most important decisions we took in the defense review to radically reduce the number of backward tanks in europe and look at increasing the maneuverability, flexibility, of our forces. we made big decisions about investment in cyber security, spending more money. we made important decisions about bringing on stream two new aircraft carriers. so this was not driven by spending. of course, it was informed by what we believed was affordable but proper strategic defense review that took proper strategic decisions. >> one other issue that particularly wanted to raise with you at the outset, because we refer to it in our first report. in the national security strategy itself, against the background of describing the rise of new global powers, shifts in the centers of economic activity, the strategy still says there should be no reduction of influence for the u.k. and then in your most recent report which does in your recent report you talk about enhancing the influence, expanding the influence of the u.k. outset concerned at the that no reduction in influence was unrealistic. when you say expanding now, do you mean spreading us dinner across the world? >> i don't. first of all, if you look across our projection oh -- of power and in for an -- influence. the foreign office, defense, trade, you definitely see britainis doing more -- is doing more. we are opening embassies, expanding in india and china. one of the only european countries with an embassy in every asean nation. there is no doubt that we want to link up with the fastest-growing parts of the world, want to be an open and engaged power. we are using what we have to do that. i would argue even in the area of defense, where of course the defense budget has come down in real terms, not by a huge amount but by a small amount, even in defense. because we have made choices, fewer battle tanks in europe, investment in things like drones and cyber and flexibility, i would argue there has been no reduction in, no long-term reduction in britain's defense capabilities and our ability to stand up for our selves in important ways around the world. i also reject the idea that you can only measure how engaged you are and how successful you are in projecting influence by how much money you spend. no business goes about like that. we have to make sure we get as much into the teeth and is little into the tail of our def ense. i would argue our leadership has been successful with that. i don't accept the idea that because we are spending less on the fence that we can have as significant of a defense plan. >> mr. arbuthnot wants to come in briefly. we aret it embarrassing spending more on the winter fuel allowance than the foreign office? >> we are spending the right amount on the foreign office to seed an expanding global network. i am a great user of our foreign office. i travel all over the world, flying the flag of the british business. investment.courage i see in our foreign office an amazing asset. i think we have brilliant diplomats, fantastic teams around the world. wasforeign office relatively well-treated by the comprehensive spending review. i don't see the foreign office in retreat at all. i see it in advance, opening new posts. a bigger presence in india than any other european power. expanding in china. the fuel allowance is necessary to help keep people warm. will talkinister, you a lot about security and strategy today. talk about strategy, what do you mean by strategy? >> to me, strategy is about setting up a clear series of goals you want to meet, and making sure you've got sensivl ble means for achieving the goals. i don't need to look at paper to tell you what i strategy is. strength, britain's refresh and enhance the great alliances we have got, to tackle threats that could threaten our country, and to make sure we do it right across government, not just the foreign office. every bit of government working together. that is the strategy. maybe i am too much of a practical chap. having set the strategy, you want to try to use government to make sure you are implementing the strategy. strategy, but i want us to determine policy. i want us to agree on action and check that we have done what we said we were going to do. to me, that is not misusing the nsc. it is the right use. i don't know what you found. often the is too problem that people love sitting around talking about strategy. it is completing on the strategy that is often the challenge. >> thank you. next word, security. -- you didcurity practically everything. good democracy, good social cohesion, everything. how do youo work -- use security? >> security, you have to take a wide definition. on nation's security relies having strong defenses so we can protect ourselves, but it, also means considering every risk to our security from floods, pandemic diseases, new threats like fall category up to and's, eruptions. what we try to do is bring together one place in the cabinet office the teams. security is the ability to protect your country, your people, your interests, so they can grow and prosper. in delivering with security you have to deal with every threat, from the biggest to the most unlikely. the point of having the big army in whitehall is to make sure we cover all the threats. >> a pretty wide definition. example, is tax avoidance by multinational companies -- atif we couldn't -- look, the heart of our national security strategy is restoring britain's economic strength. economicain in strength, things fall into place. if you lose economic strength you are in a much more difficult situation. . of national security is our economy. if we can't properly raise taxes because technology has changed and they are not paying by the rules, that would be, i suppose, a threat to security. >> i'm trying to find what isn't. >> you have to have a hierarchy. we have a terrible list of acronyms in the national risk assessment and national resilience planning assumptions. the attempt is to try and ity,neate risks to secur have them all. within one part of whitehall. example.you give me an me an example of --re people are thinking that clashes with the strategy. , because it do that clashes with the strategy. >> these issues about visa discussions, you have to weigh the prosperity agenda with the security agenda and make sure you are making the right decision. visa decisions were made by the home office -- we now discuss around the table. very important economic relations with this country. the visa restrictions are getting in the way. we reach a decision. thatrms of things proposed fall absolutely counter to the strategy, i'm struggling to think of one. example is not a bad one where you have a policy issue, which countries get visa preference, and you have a way of discussing it. >> thank you. >> mr. murphy. >> thank you. prime minister, we would like a --tle bit more about how the at the moment the committee has some ideas. syria,d be dealing with afghanistan. it doesn't give any secrets away, how operational or long-term those discussions might be? the secretary gives a report to the committee, they talk about it, and that is the end of the committee? >> it is a lot more than that. what this national security -- it isoes, it normally the secretary of state. we don't really allow, if we can avoid it, junior ministers coming in. i think it's very important in my cabinet to oversee one of the most important meetings of the whole week. but it brings together foreign secretary chancellor, prime minister -- with the heads of the intelligence agencies with the chief of the defense staff. if necessary, the head of the metropolitan police dealing with counterterrorism and you have the experts in the room as well as the politicians. the format of the meetings is often a presentation rather than just a massive paperwork and the presentation would be given by mr. kim or a leading foreign officer official to set out in front of the committee the choices we have to make. and sometimes it's very operational. we might have a -- on afghanistan, for instance, we want a proper look at the drawdown plans that the ministry of defense have. as a committee, we want to figure out, is that the right operational plan for britain? i think it is right that the government collected. sometimes it can be very strategic. we might have a discussion about our relations with the emerging powers, and it will be about how we best go about, who should we be seeking relations with and how do we improve them? sometimes it can be a meeting where it really helps to have a collective discussion. for instance, we have brought -- we have the conflict pool, ringing together money from defense and foreign affairs. i think it's good that we sit around the table. we got this money, how are we going to spend it? which conflict areas and unstable states should our investments be going into? we are about to have a conversation about the budget. obviously it is determined according to principles, but it is important to discuss this collectively so we can see the link between what we're doing in terms of, you know, fragile states that we're trying to help fix with a decision that we're making. what i'm trying to say sometimes very operational, sometimes very strategic but sometimes genuinely making operational decisions that have an impact across whitehall. >> that's very useful. in terms of perhaps the longer term or more strategic meetings that you could have, one thing we noticed is that the meetings dry up in july and they start again sometime in october. what about having one or two meetings extra in that period to look more widely at things, if you like, and at the same time the committees concerned whether the n.s.c. has sufficient outside expertise to come in and give advice and knowledge to help you out? do you think the staff is enough? >> how many staff? >> two. >> oh, no, the n.s.c. is serviced by the national security secretary which is 200 people. you really feel that the n.s.c., it's not a committee that brings together whitehall. it has a proper team together behind it that will operationalize decisions and make them happen. in terms of outside advice, we have on occasion brought outsiders in. but we also occasionally had seminars that n.s.c. members would attend in order to hear from outside experts. we had a particularly good session on pakistan and afghanistan when some experts came. we had a special n.s.c. in august last year on syria. for my g-8 agenda in terms of transparency and all of that we had a whole series of experts to address those issues. in terms of meeting over the summer, we have had meetings over the summer. i think if the criticism is that urgent operational meetings to discuss syria, afghanistan, libya, tends to crowd out more thematic discussions, i would plead guilty. i think that is inevitable when governments have to prioritize and choose and talk about the most urgent things. i think we have spent more time on the operational emergencies than rather other things. -- rather blue-sky thinking. time,are tight for although we are doing reasonably well. >> prime minister, i support the innovation of the national security council. i think everything allows sharing of institutional knowledge within governments is a good thing. .s.c., ar to the n/s/ strategic decision was usually practiced, the foreign secretary or defense secretary would make the final decision. now we have the n.s.c. you're chairing that meeting. can you think of of anything where there was a defense decision where you have taken the ultimate decision rather than the secretary of state? >> i'm not sure mrs. thatcher or tony blair would say they just left defense and foreign policy decisions to their secretary of state. and only occasionally intervened. i think the history -- history as a bilateralds thing between a prime minister and a foreign secretary or prime minister and a defense secretary. the good thing is that it's a more collective way of making decisions. of course, there are decisions made by ministers. you talk about the decisions -- for instance, how we went about our engagement in libya and the decisions we made about syria, they were genuinely discussed around the table with those ministers, with the expert advice and another point, i think a better institutionalization of the legal advice. the attorney general is there to give his opinion about these things. if you're asking, are there times when the n.s.c. comes to a different decision what the defense secretary or prime minister walked into the room, yes, it has. that's what collective decisionmaking is all about. >> we'd like to ask a series of questions on how the system actually works in practice. and you mentioned syria. how did -- this is in the sense a repeat of the question that was asked. how did the national security strategy affect the way you made decisions and the decisions you took on syria? >> well, obviously when we drew up the strategy and the sdsr in 2010, we didn't have perfect foresight about what was going to happen in the events of the arab spring in syria. i'd like to think that the decisions we've made in all these have been relatively consistent with the strategy set out in the national security strategy. but i don't -- you know, strategy always has to be adaptable and has to be changeable according to circumstances. i think it was mike tyson who said everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth. you have to make sure you can adapt what you have. but i would say the strategy is about britain engaging in the world to protect its interest and promote british values like democracy and freedom of speech and human rights. i would argue what we did in libya and the approach in syria is consistent with that. >> what would you say your strategic goal was in syria? >> i think two-fold. first of all, we've taken a general view as a national security council that while there are risks in the instability that the arab spring has thrown up, we've taken a general view that the advance of what i would call the building blocks of democracy, more open societies, more participating systems, is a good thing in the long term for security. there will always be bumps on the road but that's a good thing , so we should basically be encouraging those sorts of developments. what about the use of force in august? >> the use of force that was being asked for was linked to the issue of chemical weapons. i think the debate in a way we had in parliament ended up being a debate, quite a lot of it what happened in iraq and what some people feared might happen in syria wasn't really a debate so much about the use of chemical weapons and our response to that. fortuitously, there was a tough global response. syria decided to give up its chemical weapons and progress on that is not too bad. but when it comes to approaching syria, our arguments have been britain continues with its very strong position on humanitarian aid, which is set out in the national security strategy. we continued our support for developments that are positive under the arab spring which i think are consistent with the values in here. but we are also taking a very, very strong and careful look how we protect ourselves from the risks of terrorism and extremism which i think is a growing threat in syria. i have think we need to spend a huge amount of time working how to best mitigate that. >> but coming back to the issue of chemical weapons for a moment, presumably you had a strategic goal in mind. what was it? was it to make assad give up the chemical weapons or was it regime change or -- >> the strategic goal was not -- the strategic goal that i discussed with president obama before the vote in the house of commons was that having set a red line on chemical weapons use, we couldn't allow assad to cross it with impunity. and the sort of military action that was envisioned was purely and simply about chemical weapons. we judged -- i judged that it was important, not only in the context of syria but also the argument i made in the house of commons was that the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons has been important to britain and countries like britain for decades and so it was worthwhile taking a strong stance on this issue, not just because of syria, but the message it would send to other dictators around the world if we did not take that stand. i said happily without military action being taken, the desired effect has been achieved which is they do look as they're making real progress on giving up chemical weapons. that's what it was about. it was not about regime change. it was not about broadening the conflict. it was purely and simply about that issue. >> we are all concerned about the implications of people in -- people who fought in syria. having honed their skills in combat, acquired new techniques and so on. was that discussed with the national security council? >> yes, in great detail. all through our discussion about syria. syria has been a real difficult challenge for policymakers all over the western world. because nobody wants to get involved in conflicts. but on the other hand, everyone can see right from the start this was a conflict which was going to drive extremism and instability and cause huge problems in the region. that's been a massive challenge. but every discussion we had about syria we also discussed the dangers of british people traveling to syria, the dangers of extremism, the dangers of terrorists returning home. i think the signs in syria are extremely worrying at that front of the moment. int is why we are downstairs the house of commons debating how we should be able to take away people's citizenship. we have a cross-government response. securing our borders, discouraging people from traveling to syria. working with allies to deal with the terrorist threat. stopping people coming back, etc., etc. it's a very big focus for us right now. >> was that a decision of the national security council? >> that was something we have looked at in the national i ask -- in the security council. i don't recall if the decision was taken for that particular measure. >> that's very helpful. this isn't just about foreign policy. there is a domestic element. but there are other issues where people might say, hang on, defending country against terrorism we put 600 million a year into counterterrorism. another two billion pounds on the single intelligence account. momenthave people at the having problems with floods, and our expenditure on flood defense was last year 560 million, rising next year. does the national security council get involved in deciding how to allocate resources between the different risks on the national risk list and if so how do you reach a conclusion? >> it's a very good question. what we have is a national risk assessment as well as a national risk register which is a document we used to try and assess these risks. we discuss that and agree and try to make sure we're dealing with risks in an appropriate way. it's very difficult to try and measure up the amount you spend on one subject with what you spend on another. i can't pretend there is an exact science in it, but i would say because all these risks and risk registers are brought together in the national ariat, at least we have one partner government looking to measure all this up and the committee then looks at it. >> so do you look at those resource choices? >> we, we do look at resource choices. specifically in terms of intelligence. the budget comes in front of the n.s.c. and we have to -- it's a good moment where the politicians can act as inquisitors to the experts how we got it right between counterterrorism and espionage , between counterterrorism policing and broader things. the question, do you measure up floods on the one hand and the chance of terrorism on the other , it is quite difficult to argue there is a science where you can work out where you have the exact amount of money in the right place. >> 600 million -- >> you're bringing it together. you're looking at your potential weaknesses and you are trying to make sure you correctly identify the gap. >> has the national security council discussed flooding? >> we have discussed flooding in the context of a national risk register, national risk assessment. we have a specific subcommittee that looks at resilient sense threats and hazards, but flooding has more generally been dealt with through cobra. i think it's a mistake to think that the n.s.c. is entirely strategic and cobra is entirely operational. i do use cobra to address issues where you need a -- it slightly wider than the national security council and flooding is a good example of that. , as part of that process do you have a long-term , plan with the impact of climate change on the u.k.? have you considered which parts of the critical national infrastructure are most threatened by rising sea levels? >> we had discussions in the national security council about climate change. we need to have another one before the next meeting. we also have a piece of work that's been done on critical infrastructure and the potential threat to critical infrastructure, including from floods and from rising sea levels and that has been considered. i want to make sure i'm not misleading the committee in any way. the critical infrastructure is something that's coordinated by the n.s.s. and then get some -- put to ministers. >> thank you. >> mr. prime minister, talking about the reorganization of the ministry of defense. this committee's report last year mentioned the fact that the future army 2020, for example, will be joined the structure of the reserves has not been , something that's come before the national security council. do you think we were right to be concerned about that? >> i never want to criticize it. my nephew has done a fantastic job. but i think it's actually true to say that the national security council did discuss the army structure before the announcement was made. so i don't want to give the impression this was a process entirely outside -- >> i think it was the secretary of state for defense. >> all right. i will blame him instead. [laughter] i think you have a fair point. it was done by the n.s.c. a piece of it was sorted out later, was the overall structure of the army. but i am right in saying the reserve work was committed -- commissioned by the n.s.c., and the results of that and the future structure of reserves versus regulars was discussed by .s.c. before announcement. have i got that right? i think if you're saying, look, you should have done the thing in one go, sometimes these things take a few iterations to get absolutely right. >> probably impossible. >> thank you. prime minister, still on security but changing the emphasis somewhat, risk of -- and public perception. mention has been made of flooding. if you ask lots of people they would say flooding. when we had incidents -- i'm wondering to what extent your strategy, which you outlined all the economic benefits, which we all would agree with, who is responsible for engaging the public so their perception of risk is not just a knee jerk reaction to the latest problem? and that when somebody challenges what the government is doing, you're actually able to extend. we are talking about syria. you said even debate in the house focused on iraq. so how do you deal with that? who in government is responsible for getting that kind of message about public perceptions of britain? >> i hope by having a national security council people can see these risks are being looked at as a whole and in the round. it falls to the prime minister trying to explain how we look at risks and the steps we take and what we're trying to do to keep our country safe. i think our scientists can probably help by informing the debate about risks and probabilities. i think also your committee is helping because you're looking at our strategy and you're saying, well, have you had enough consideration of this and have you looked at those risks? i think in the end have a strategy, explain what it is. the prime minister has to front it up. the scientists can help by explaining some of the probabilities and risks and that's probably the best you can do. coming back to this flooding versus terrorism, i think people want to know we're doing everything possible to protect dwellings from flooding and we have a forward investment program and all the rest of it. i think people understand there are severe weather events that can affect your country. you do everything you can to mitigate but in the end you can't mitigate against every single thing. whereas these appalling terrorist events, which can be so indiscriminant and are such huge risks, they want to know you're doing everything possible to prevent them from happening in the first place. >> do you think that the recent problems that we have all seen about the snowden revelation, the way in which they have been publicized largely by some people actually undermining public confidence in our security agencies? and if so, who's responsible for defending the agencies, explaining and getting some perspective to some of the difficult discussions? >> i think first of all, in response to snowden, i think what we have to do is make sure we're confident that the governance procedures for the intelligence services are row bust, the intelligence -- robust, the intelligence commissioners. i keep asking myself, do we have a good system in place? and i think we have. we're trying to improve it. in terms of, has it dented public confidence in the work of the security agencies? i haven't seen the opinion polling, but my sense is that the public reaction as opposed to some of the media reaction, look, we have intelligence because it's a dangerous world and there are bad people that want to do terrible things to us and we should support these intelligence services and the work they do. i think the public reaction, what i felt in terms of what people's reaction has been, has been pretty robust. who's responsible for defending the security cells and explaining what they do? i think i have a responsibility. i feel like i'm the minister for the intelligence service and i have the responsibility to stand up for them, thank them publicly because they can't be thanked publicly as other emergency services are and try to explain what they do. i've done some of that. i think they are often the best spokesmen -- spokespeople for themselves. i think their appearance in front of the parliamentary committee recently was excellent. i think the speech that the head of the security cell was very good summary of the threats we face. i don't want them to make a speech every week. i think actually they could help set the agenda and explain what they do perhaps better than anyone. >> final question. don't you think there is potential danger, the lack of public support for a government might feel is essential to do in certain circumstances might be undermined of what would be needed and the better explanation and shouldn't that be part of your planning when you're actually talking about your strategy, the strategy should not be -- it should be about explaining it? >> i think it's a very fair point. i think if you're saying, should the prime minister, the foreign secretary responsible for two of the agencies, should the three of us do more to explain, defend and give people a sense of why their work is so important? yes. i agree with that. i think we should do more. if you're worried about damage -- yes, i'm worried about what snowden did with respect to security. i would ask the newspaper to think before they act because we are in danger of making ourselves less safe as a result. as i say -- but i think the public reaction, as i judge it, has not been one of sort of shock horror. it's been much more intelligence agencies carry out intelligence work. good. >> thank you. in hindsight, prime minister, is there anything that the n.s.c. has missed? >> i think there are some specific subjects of quite a technical nature that organizations like yours and others have drawn to our attention. i am not a scientist. so e.m.p.'s and space weather, i think that's actually useful to give the officials to say, have we got this covered, have we got that covered? i think we need to go faster with this work about really examining plans, whether it's the dfid budget, whether it's the conflict pool, can we do more to make this organization really drive policy rather than just strategy? i think we should probably do more on that. in terms of missing things, there are lots of things that the pundits and the politicians and the experts have not foreseen in the development of global affairs but that's why, yes, have a strategy but recognize you need to adapt it to changing circumstances. >> one thing that we commented early on that we missed in the original national security strategy, we're about to go on to the next one, was the question the americans announcing their -- it has enormous strategic consequences. that wasn't touched on at all in the security strategy. >> i think i'm right in saying, when was the speech, the great obama speech? was it 2010 or 2011? i say we are doing our own pivot. if you look at the amount of foreign office activity in southeast asia, the asian countries, what we're doing in china and india, william is changing that department and focusing on the high growth emerging powers and all the rest of it. obviously we haven't mentioned our gulf strategy which is a breakthrough too, to recognize there is a whole set of countries which we have a strong history, strong relations where we should try to build on those relationships. so i think we're doing our own pivoting. i think if i had a wish of replaying it all, i think the thing the sdsr did in terms of moving us away from the battle tanks in western europe and towards flexible, deployable future technologies, cyber, drones and the rest of it, i which we had done more and faster. and i suppose i'd apply that to the foreign policy side as well. i think this prosperity, trade -- trade diplomacy agenda which now is being driven very hard across government, i would have liked to have done more even sooner because i think it's going to be part of our future national success. if we can, you know, massively increase exports to china. if we can link up with the fastest-growing countries, that will be a big part of britain's future success story. you remember from being foreign secretary, getting the tanker to move, you would say, i wish i pushed it harder and faster. >> thank you. we'll go on for the next national security strategy. >> thank you very much, chair. when peter was in the role, he told us he would take two years to prepare a new strategy. since then there's been a 25% -- the work on the next strategy hasn't started. was he wrong? can you tell us when it will start? >> the work is beginning on both national security strategy and particularly on sdsr because the next sdsr we need to start planning now. look, you can argue forever about how long these things take, but i'm so keen on implementing what we said we were going to do that i put more weight on that. as i say, my fear is that if you move faster on writing new strategies you -- all the people that are trying to deliver what we need in libya or in syria, they'll come off that and they'll start writing strategies again. >> will it be fundamentally >> will it be fundamentally different or folow the same one? am i right in assuming it won't be finished until the next government is in place? >> both? >> the n.s.c.? >> you're right. they'll get a span a period of the next election. we should be starting now. i don't think -- and if you go back over the national security strategy, it needs to refresh. i don't think it will be a complete overhaul. i think i hinted to margaret if i'm responsible for its eventual outcome, i think it will have that trade prosperity agenda perhaps more strongly. i wouldn't expect a huge change. in either the national security strategy or the sdsr. the strategy we took in the sdsr, having a gap in capacity, the exciting thing as we come into the next one, the gap will be coming to an end. we'll have fantastic new carrier in the high seas very soon. >> with planes. >> with planes and people in it. >> can we look between the three of us on this panel some of the specific future things? in particular, we talked about the pivot for america. what about the european union? which we will not know in the next strategy whether the u.k. will be part of the european union on or not. so will that be spelled out, the implications being in or out and specifically, how it will change if the u.k. ceases to be a member of the european union? >> my strategy linked in with the national security strategy is that we secure a referendum and i want to recommend that we should remain part of a reformed european union and i plan on the basis of success rather than the basis of anything else. but we don't -- european issues, we haven't dealt within the national security council. we dealt with them elsewhere in government. i accept it has important implications to the u.k. i think we should plan on the basis of what we want to achieve. >> yes. it's a democratic vote. if people are going to vote the other way, despite your recommendation, it has strategic implications. i mean, we have a vote this year on scottish independence and the government produced a series of papers setting out their case where the u.k. is better together. will you not do the same thing for the european union? >> well, we have done with the review looked at the various areas. i think once the negotiation is complete, there will then be a period before a referendum where the two sides in that debate can set out their arguments. i -- as you know, we are in a coalition government. the coalition partners have slightly different views about europe. my judgement is if we use the n.s.c. to debate and discuss europe issues, we would have a second reading debate. what i want is the actions necessary to deliver it. i think it's better to keep europe out of it. >> well, another specific issue and i'll be quick about this one. we heard in the past that our food security and essentially we are about three days away from a food crisis. most of our food is in transit. we found that out with the truck driver strike. do you believe you have addressed enough about how some disruption of communications could lead to a food crisis and how have you responded? is that something that's central to the security strategy? because clearly food shortages could move the country to a crisis in the span of a short period of time? >> what we have done is handling the threats to food supplies, one did a review of emergency planning. it concluded there was relatively good resilience in the u.k. food supply chain. and carried out the assessment in 2010. it's part of the national critical infrastructure plan that we have. you're definitely right. as a country that imports food, that has a lot of just in time delivery and all the rest of it, dislocation, whether volcanic ash from iceland or truck driver strike or what have you does impact those things relatively quickly. i'm satisfied that we have examined the issues, but that's not to say, you know, you don't get effects when infrastructure is threatened. >> prime minister, in the annual report on n.s.s. and the sdsr published last december, there was a paragraph which started with the sentence -- it has been a government priority to introduce the program to preserve the ability of the security intelligence and law enforcement agencies to have the access they require in communications. it goes on and ends with, changes to the existing legislative stream work may be required to maintain these vital capabilities. and i understand that the interceptions commissioner is reviewing our legislation. and will no doubt report to you. edward snowden's leaked material, is there anything you could share with us today to comment about the position of the united kingdom in the light of what was said in this report? >> well, first of all, i'd agree with the report that over time we are going to have to modernize the legislative framework and practice when it comes to dealing with communications data. it's obviously a politically quite contentious topic. i'm not sure that we'll make progress on it in the coming months in terms of legislation. there may be things short of legislation that we can do. but i do think that politicians, police chiefs, the intelligence services, we've got a role in explaining what this is all about. because i think, while i wouldn't go back to what i said earlier, i don't think snowden had an enormous public impact. it raises questions about who has access to my data and why. but i'm absolutely convinced that proper rules for communications data is essential. i didn't think we got it across to people yet the basics of this. in most of the serious crimes, child abductions, who called who and when and where was the telephone at the time, not the content of the call, but communications data is absolutely vital. and i think we need the police chiefs, the investigators and others and the politicians explaining what this is about. i love watching, as i probably should stop telling people, crime dramas on the television. there's highly a crime drama that a crime is solved without using the data of a mobile communications device. and that's not about the content. it's about -- and the problem we have to explain to people is as you move from a world of people having fixed telephones and mobile phones to skype and phones on the internet and all of that, if we don't modernize the practice and modernize the law, over time we will have the communications data to solve these horrible crimes on a shrinking proportion of the total use of devices. and that is a real problem for keeping people safe. now, i don't know if that was the clearest explanation i could give but we need to make this explanation really, really clear and get it out to people and build, perhaps the start of the next parliament, a cross-party case, a sensible legislation to deal with this issue. i think it is possible, but i think it's going to take a lot of work by politicians across parties to try and take that civil liberties concern seriously but get them in proportion so we can then make some progress. >> thank you, prime minister. i think we'd all agree with that. and i think it follows on very well from what -- perhaps this is something the n.s.c. can look at, how to get what you said over to the general public, the difference between data and content. >> well, the best attempt i've seen so far, i think one or two police chiefs wrote some articles in the newspapers and i thought when they explained just how much this involved in child abduction cases, in solving murders and solving serious crimes, you know, i absolutely see and my work with security services and how vital it is to prevent terrorist attacks, i -- you know, i feel passionate about this. i feel the first responsibility of my job is to help keep people safe. and the fact it's used so much in crime is a very straightforward thing that people can get a hold of. >> thank you. i want to ask you about something else. prime minister, we all understand the desirability of foreign investment and so on. but has the n.s.c. looked closely enough at the issue of foreign ownership of parts of our critical infrastructure? i'm thinking of energy, nuclear power and waste, water and so on. and are you confident that there isn't reason to be concerned about whether or not there should be some clear red lines drawn about foreign ownership? >> well, we do have a proper system in place for examining whether inward investments and things like infrastructure are in our national interests. but actually sir kim and i were discussing earlier there will be a proper n.s.c. consideration of this because we have slightly different procedures for some slightly different parts of our infrastructure. and i think it would be good to have a collective discussion when it comes to telecoms and electricity networks and gas networks and what have you that we have all the rules we need in place. so we will do that. i would -- and when we had a specific issue, like huawei, we properly responded to the i.s.c. report. i would not underplay that the fact that britain is saying to the world that we welcome it with investment and we welcome investment into, you know, key parts of infrastructure. the fact that the chinese will be invested, i think is a good thing. it means we can free up more of our own capital to spend on roads and railways and other things. and it also makes an enormous -- it's a very good message for britain going around the world. we are not embarrassed but delighted that indian capital is rebuilding the british car industry. we're delighted that the chinese are going to own part of water, investing in heathrow. i think it's one of our calling cards that we are an open economy that encourages people to invest. so, yes, by all means, let's check if there were security issues we could act properly and appropriately and we will do, but don't lose the position as a great open economy. i was very struck by one of the large chinese investors, britain is better than all. i thought that was a good endorsement. >> thank you. >> prime minister, i think when you're saying you wish you could spend more time and effort on asia, some had a history of trade in this country. [inaudible] i just want to get your view. mr. gates made a comment the other day, former defense secretary of america, to ensure global reach in support of our long-term security interests and fulfilling our part with a crucial relationship with the united states navy, we must guarantee that we have high-end capability with the necessary number and mix of ships? you stated on the 31st of january, 2013, your words, your strong view was that the defense budget will require year-on-year growth beyond 2015. as a leading member of nato, no less than 2% of our g.d.p. for our defense budget, i hope you're able to confirm that this is still very, very much your view and intention and will be emphasized at the nato conference this september. >> i don't move away from the importance of our defense budget and what that should mean for the future at all. where i take issue slightly with former secretary gates is i think actually if you look at the equipment program for our navy, it is absolutely a full spectrum equipment program. you have the two carriers under construction. you have the type 45 destroyers coming into action. you got the future frigate program that is there. you have the hunter-killer submarines. you have the trident submarines and the pledge to renew them and the immense ability the royal marines. in terms of the navy it has a very bright future and it is a full spectrum capability from, you know, the nuclear deterrent at one end to, you know, smaller vessels right at the other end. so i don't accept that we are, you know, shrinking the navy or it's not a full spectrum capability. it absolutely is. as for what you say about asia, i completely agree. we've seen a big increase in our experts to china, for instance, but we're still only 1% of chinese exports. we can, you know, quite easily get to 2% which will be great for us without being a huge change. >> prime minister, there are some who would suggest having more at 26 frigates to meet the very ambitions you have been talking about today will be more than useful. >> i have this debate with the navy all the time. because clearly what's been happening is that we are having fewer, more expensive ships, type 45's, you know, are pretty close to a billion pounds each. they are phenomenally expensive. they are the most modern, most effective. one of our type 45s that's doing more at the moment. i think it's getting quite a lot of attention. there is obviously a discussion we should have, is there a role for other sorts of vessels we should be using as well and what's the tradeoffs between these multipurpose ships that can do everything from drug interdiction in the caribbean right through carrier escorts or complex warfare, is it right to do that or should you try to have more ships that are carrying out more different tasks? and i think it's a debate that will continue. up until now the answer is let's have the multirole ships that can do everything. >> let me switch a subject and that's the role of the n.s.c. and that's energy and energy policy. there are two aspects of it. you have the shorter term policy and the longer term policy. am i right in saying that the only real security strategy is the department of energy and climate change document which obviously leaves out foreign policy, planning and range of other issues and frankly looking 50 or 100 years ahead as to what we should be considering, is that something that almost at the top of the agenda in the years to come on long term? i'll come back to short term in a moment. >> clearly energy security is vital. we were talking earlier about how do you define security? clearly energy security, the ability to power your economy, to power your homes and businesses, that's the key aspect of security and it is something taken seriously by the national security council. we have discussed it and taken papers on it. i would argue that we have a good strategy there. we are renewing our nucelar and we will follow next. we set out a very clear strategy so everyone knows what the rules and the costs are for investing in renewables. and we're moving ahead, not just with new gas plants as appropriate but also with onshore shale gas which i think could be a major industry for britain in the future. so i think we got a long-term plan. and we've got to make sure that every piece of that is put in place. >> and i think our position does put us -- being reliant on so much. >> i think if you look at our energy penetration of imports compared with other countries, because of the north sea, we had a relatively good record. we got the interconnector with france. a potential interconnector with norway. if we make the most of shale gas, then as north sea gas runs down we'll have a new national resource. so when i look at our position in europe and look at, you know, how reliant we are on imports, i'm -- i think we're relatively secure position. we must keep up. that's why the relationship with gasa and others in terms of imported gas, the relationship with norway is fantastically important. making sure we get a decent contribution for renewables. and making this program work. >> could i bring up the other thing that is a really serious problem? we believe our country is facing potentially a very serious crisis of supply and competitiveness at this very moment in time we speak. and are you prepared to set aside the targets in the 2008 climate change act in order to get through this period? if you're unable to act unilaterally, will you seek consensus with the major countries on behalf of the commitments? prime minister, what i ask with that is, do you accept now in retrospect these targets, those set by the former government but were endorsed by you, were a huge mistake that threatens the severely damaged and indeed our already damaging europe competitive and growth prospect in years to come? >> prime minister, this view that he expressed may not be shared by -- >> of course. two questions in there. one is the climate change act framework, can that work for us in the long term? my answer is yes, it can. we set these budgets. we have to make sure they're achievable and deliverable. i supported the climate change act and i think we can make it work. the second part i think about the european targets which i think we are capable of meeting, i think you go back over the history and argue whether it was right to have as many specific targets, you might come to a different answer. europe is reviewing -- the e.u. is reviewing this at the moment about whether the specific targets are correct. but look, the question i ask and i got the energy industries, the national grid and everybody else around the table, i checked that our situation was robust, is are we content with the rules we have in place and everything we have in place that we are energy secure in terms of our short, medium and long-term future or are there any changes we need to make about decommissioning coal plants, bringing on gas more quickly or anything else and the answer i got was that the rules and regulations and capacity mechanisms are in place so we have the energy security that we need. so the question you put is very important. but i don't think either the climate change act or our own situation is one that we ought to be concerned with but one that i think we need to make major change. >> [inaudible] this is just not my view. it's head of the international energy agency based in paris and in london here today, we were discussing only the subject of deep, deep critical concern about europe's competitiveness. >> the european union -- they'll debate at the march council. they'll think very carefully about international competitiveness and prices. the united states has 10,000 shale gas wells. in europe we got about 100. and so i think we do need to think about the competitiveness picture. i completely agree with that. i don't think throwing out the window the concern about carbon emission reduction. what is the market in europe, that would be a very good thing. make sure we make use of shale gas. we are committed to cheap green energy and keep driving down the price of these new technologies. if we do all those things we can be green and competitive. >> we are almost out of time. i just want to take you back for a moment. to something you said about the maritime -- about the navy. i am reminded about what was said recently, unless we change our current course, not enough people. to staff it. he said the royal navy was close to its critical mass. and i applaud what you said about the navy. >> well, i think -- to be fair, what was said, if spending reductions went further, there would be a danger of what was called hollowing out. if we were in danger of that happening with what we have. the point i would make is that in the sdsr we made decisions with the chiefs of the defense staff around the table that we're about the future capabilities of the u.k. and a very strong argument was made, which i completely agree with, that we need to have a navy that is full spectrum, that's got everything from those submarines, the type 45's, to the future frigates and everything else. and that was a real priority. we've taken this gap in capability, which we'll refresh with the new carriers, and that's incredibly important. i don't see -- obviously want to do everything we can on value for money, on efficiency. i think if we do that i don't see any reason why we won't be able to properly run and crew these excellent assets. and also i think it's encouraging people to join the navy. the opportunities when you got this absolutely world first- class equipment that's running out of our ship-yards at the moment, it is terrific to encourage people to join up. >> can i applaud what you just said about the gap being replaced by new carriers? [laughter] >> you have about two minutes. >> [inaudible] going back to the earlier question, in a public meeting, if the secretaries get their way and break scotland up from the kingdom, what are the national security implications of that? i think you stated publicly some of those implications but i wonder if you could elaborate a little bit more. >> in a nutshell, we are more secure together as well as more prosperous and all the rest of it. scotland makes an enormous contribution to the u.k.'s defense. i will be making a speech soon which is it's very important everyone in the rest of the united kingdom emphasizes how much we benefit of scotland staying in the united kingdom and that's something i feel passionate about. >> we're grateful, prime minister. and i think we got through most of the things we wanted to get through. i think you would have gathered that we are very anxious about the national security strategy, anxious that the next one will be better. one point we have made repeatedly is how much we would like to see it drawn outside experts and other views. without any disrespect to the people we have. and a couple of times it's been suggested that the government might consult this committee and we very much hope that it will and we will do our best to be cooperative and helpful. >> thank you. we are keen to hear the views of others. in the end, the government has got to own this document. so it's got to reflect our collective view. but the more input and also identifying gaps and weaknesses that your committee does frankly the better. >> very kind of you. thank you very much indeed. order, order. the meeting is now adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] at our is a look primetime schedule, friday on c- span, a group of republicans under the age of 40 took part in a press conference in maryland. on c-span two, the senate energy committee on restrictions of crude oil exports and on c- gives userican indians the annual state of the nation's address. clinicd of the mayo attended the state of the union this week as a guest. on our next washington journal, he will share his thoughts on the u.s. health care system. and the state of the union, president obama announced the creation of a new retirement savings program called myra. diane oakley will talk about the plan. the bureau of labor statistics put out a report on how the workforce will change in 10 years. christina barsh will join us to discuss the findings. we will take your calls and you can also join the question -- the conversation on facebook and twitter. live each morning at 7:00 eastern on c-span. so many people are of the opinion that if the members of the super in court don't like something that is happening in andcountry, it reaches out court andt into the starts writing opinions, which is of course contrary to the as anything could be. >> friday, a series of oral history interviews with former justices. this week, former chief justice earl warren at 4:00 eastern. fm,ashington at 90.1 online, and nationwide on xm radio. someone who grew in the office. he was badly burned by the bay of pigs experience. he had listened to the experts. the cia. the joint chiefs of staff. see charleswent to de gaulle in france, and de gau lle said to him you should surround yourself with the smartest possible people, listen to them. hear what they have to say. but at the end of the day, you have to make up your own mind. and he, kennedy, remembered what harry truman had said, the buck stops here. after the bay of pigs, he was determined to make up his own mind and hear what the experts had to say, weigh what they were telling him, but he was going to make the judgment and he was the responsible party. and you see that, you see that, that was abundantly clear when you listen to all of those and read the transcripts of those tapes during the cuban missile crisis. he was his own man. he was the one making up his mind. he held the joint chiefs at arms length. they wanted to bomb, invade. he did not want to do it. >> a look at the kennedy administration, sunday night on c-span's q&a. week, senator john thune took part in the internet education foundation that conference which focused on internet policy trends in 2014 and the future of the industry. this is 20 minutes. >> if i can have your attention, please. my name is roger, i am the and simple with the board of directors -- i am a principal with the board of directors, the ournsor of today's, this 10th annual state of the net conference. for those of you who were not around, to show you how long 10 years is in internet time, in the first conference, we sponsored, we had to have it in the back of the room, banks of computers, so that people could check their e-mail. a long time in internet time. during these 10 years, the state of the net conference has been the premier conference on a global scale to examine internet policy issues. that is no coincidence. the ief board i would like to thank him, our executive director, for having organized what is one of the best conferences we have ever done. [applause] the state of the net conference, as the literature explains, is one of many projects the internet education foundation sponsors. wise,also include get net the congressional internet caucus, and the advisory committee. the state of the mobile net, the , and ourthe net west newest project, the congressional acts -- apps challenge, there is literature there as well. since i am also the treasurer of the internet education foundation, i would be remiss if i did not mention to all of you if you have not visited our rg, i wouldted.o encourage you to do so and i will also draw your attention to the little yellow button that is prominently displayed on the website. it is the button that will permit you to make a tax- deductible contribution. if you have not been to our website, please visit it. it is my pleasure to introduce to you this morning senator john thune, the cochair of the congressional internet caucus. senator thune is well known in south dakota and outside of the state for his interest and knowledge of the internet, electronic commerce, internet policy matters, and the like. in addition to cochairing the congressional internet caucus, he is the ranking member of the senate commerce committee and the chairman of the senate republican conference, the number three leadership position in the republican members of the senate. he cosponsored the digital trade act of 2013, only the most recent of internet policy initiatives he has been responsible for. i am sure his remarks will in line olive us. -- will enlighten all of us. he has to move on when he finishes but we appreciate his coming and thank him for his service as the cochair of the congressional internet caucus. senator thin. -- senator thune. [applause] >> thank you, roger. i appreciate the chance to be with you. as cochair, i am proud to be able to be here for the 10th annual state of the net conference. a decade in internet time is a long time, it is an eternity and yet the state of the net has stayed relevant and thought- provoking and i want to organizes thisho event on an annual basis and leaves the net caucus. he deserves a lot of credit for the successful run this conference has had. in thes is a long time life of the internet and i would like to take everyone back further in time, the year in which i was first elected to congress. it was the year in which the na dominated- macare the music scene and the last year in which the nation's telecommunications laws were updated. back then you had to pay for the internet by the hour and going online and tying up your home telephone line. once you connected to the internet on your modem, there were not a lot of things to do or places to visit. at that time there were only 100,000 websites. aol was the biggest, by far. contrast that to today where there are 860 million websites. google and wikipedia had not been created. blogging in text messages did not exist. back in 1996. in the mobile world, the biggest innovation was the introduction of the world's first flip phone. everybody remembers that. it initially sold for $1000. at that point, more people are carrying one-way pagers then went online. despite how much the world has changed, there are many people who repeatedly tried to constrain emerging business models and technologies with last century's structures. disruptive startups like uber an d lift do not fit neatly into regulatory boxes but that has not stopped regulators from trying. the economy is real. it is growing and while i understand the need to ensure safety and transparency in the marketplace, i wish more officials shared my optimism about how successful the internet is at facilitating individual economic empowerment. in d c, there is a discussion about how to handle the from analog cell phone systems to digital ip networks. the old copper-based networks that were once monopolies remain regulated. while the internet is unregulated and competitive. many folks, nonetheless, want to apply archaic telephone regulations to the digital ecosystem and that is the crux of the policy debate we are having here in washington, d.c. i have to say i don't understand how anyone believes that laws l arened for ma bel appropriate today. while there are fundamental goals that need to be preserved such as public safety, as policymakers we need to be open- minded about how to achieve those goals in the future without being bound by the strictures of the past. is anternet ecosystem world of entrepreneurship and innovation. the status quo is a four letter and disruption is the highest virtue. that is why i am amazed when so- called advocates for the internet want to constrain the marketplace with policy thinking from the last century. there are exceptions, of course, but too often when you hear somebody say, we need regulations to protect the internet, they are actually theng they do not trust internet entrepreneurs to create the economic growth and to increase public welfare. the private sector created things like the iphone, current funding, staff cap, -- snap chat, lolcats. not every innovation is equal but the government has come up with things like internet kill switch, the itu, netting jollity, -- net neutrality, sopa. thenot suggesting government is always wrong. a few of these issues are black- and-white but the scale should be on the side of the job creators. do you really need government to step in and help you or would you really rather government get out of your way? i can guess how much of -- many of you would answer that question. there are three things that congress should be doing to get out of your way and to foster innovation. first, congress needs to strip away obsolete laws and regulations that are no longer needed. for instance, before superstorm andy, verizon was providing handful of customers in lower manhattan with telegraph services, for some reason. sandy wiped out miles of their copper network. the telegraph customers are reportedly fine with moving to modern fiber-based services. yet verizon is required by the federal communications commission to ask for the agency's permission to discontinue its telegraph offering. another regulation requires telephone companies to label, track, and report the location, down to the specific room, of every single piece of equipment in their central offices. even a $10 circuit board. that $10 circuit board last two decades, the company has to keep a record of it and all of its movements, for those 20 years. along with records on every other piece of equipment in the network. thankfully, mark zuckerberg's dorm room was not burdened by such micromanagement. unnecessary laws like these have piled up over the decades. and while we talk about these things and it may sound trivial, the burden represents a significant economic drag that toerged limited resources regulators and away from providing new products and services to consumers. modernizeeeds to those laws we do not get rid of sewer statutes reflect the 21st century. theo our statutes reflect 20 first century. the 21sting member -- century. as a ranking member, i think we will revisit some of these laws this year. many of them were written before streaming video, cloud, even before satellite-tv became widespread. this is an area of two medication log that is ripe for an update. the commerce law has done work on cyber security. i am pleased our committee has advanced legislation that resists a top-down regulatory approach and i am hopeful that this year may be the one when such legislation, which is supported by the tech community, is finally enacted. from the issues i hear technology sectors are electronic surveillance and immigration. as you know, there is a robust debate over how to appropriately balance security and privacy in the digital world. getting it right is a critical challenge facing policy makers around the world and i expect tension on this important matter in the months ahead. on immigration, the senate it had somel, problems associated with it, but it included some worthwhile provisions. particularly in high skilled immigration. i am a cosponsor of targeted legislation to increase the number of high skilled workers who can come to work in this country and i was glad to see the senate bill included meaningful positions to ensure the united states will continue to be a magnet for the best and the brightest talents from around the world. there is a fair amount of consensus around these provisions and i wish that more of my colleagues would welcome such victories where they can be onnd rather than insisting an all or nothing approach to legislating. third, the government should work to protect the internet from threats from abroad. this is an area i believe the u.s. government can and should play an active role in protecting the internet. many of you are familiar with overseas efforts to increase ever mental control of the internet with the international telecommunications unit. in 2012, the united states government supported a bipartisan consensus in congress, i should say supported by a bipartisan consensus, sent a delegation to divide to beat back proposals to have the itu regulate the internet. the victory was a narrow one. there is still a great deal of diplomatic work that needs to be done to convince other countries that a light touch, multi- stakeholder model is what is best for them and their citizens and for the internet itself. avenues for the digital trade around the world is another area the united states government needs to focus its efforts. i have introduced a trade act with my democratic colleague senator ron wyden to make digital trade a top priority for american diplomats and future trade deals. countries like china and brazil, and even our friends in europe, are considering policies to , first-rate, and disfavor american digital services and goods. just as we have fought against protectionist barriers against exports, we now need to ensure that digital protection does not lead to the balkanization of the internet. we risk segregating parts of the world from the global network and creating second-class netizens who might not benefit from the power of the internet. we must avoid letting legitimate privacy concerns and debate over electronic surveillance become a stalking horse for opportunistic restrictions on digital trade. by working toward these goals, eliminating unnecessary laws, modernizing the necessary ones, and protecting the internet, congress can help create an environment that allows people to innovate freely. the legal environment where entrepreneurs can concentrate on end users rather than on bureaucrats and government restrictions. policymakers in the private sector need to stay focused on making sure all segments of the population can enjoy the feuds -- the fruits of the digital revolution. old and young, urban and rural. while there is much the government can do with stewardship, i challenge the private sector to spend more time thinking about the digital divide. not every technology user is a young person with a good job living in a big city on the coast. i was sharing with roger earlier today, my dad is 94 years old. mylives in my town -- hometown of myrdal, south dakota. the internet is his world -- his window to the world. i asked them to google himself. he played basketball back in the 1940's. there is, under the images section of his google website, there is a photo of him in the shower. [laughter] the waist up.rom something you probably would not see today. it was from a minneapolis newspaper at the time. it is an example of how much information is available to people, even like my father. 94 years old. that is what keeps them connected and keeps them going every day. for many folks, the internet is a four in -- is a foreign language. can'tthe government alone bridge this digital divide and that is why encourage all of the smart people out there, people in this room and in silicon valley, silicon alley and silicon prairie to really think about the unique digital oldercy challenges facing americans, barack communities, minority populations, and others for whom the promise of the internet remains unfulfilled. the private sector is far better than the government in making the internet relevant to the public. after all, if it is the great onlinehe invaluable services, even the quirky forms of entertainment that truly drive internet adoption. as a representative of a state with many rural communities, i am committed to working on this issue and i want to call on you and the private sector to do similarly to that cause. from my position in leadership, i see the rewards and challenges of living through the digital revolution. the world moves so fast it is hard for even the most technologically savvy and digitally connected person to keep up with everything. it should be no surprise that our laws have fallen woefully behind. many of the policies affecting our digital life were written in a world that is unrecognizable to today's digital natives and are just as outdated as a dial- up modem. i'm going to work with my colleagues in the senate to start a dialogue on modernizing america's digital policies because we need 21st century laws for a 21st century world. discard old technologies like pagers and floppy disks for newer and better technologies. government needs to be willing to do the same with america's antiquated laws. thank you very much. you all have a great conference. enjoy. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> has republicans holding a conference to talk about a variety of issues including immigration. president obama has been traveling the country discussing the agenda he laid out in this week's state of the union. the president was in wisconsin earlier today talking about jobs and the economy. the secretary of the air force talk to reporters about the culture of stress and fear with a nuclear missile corps to talk .bout proficiency exams they're holding the annual policy conference
but i don't -- you know, strategy always has to be adaptable and has to be changeable according to circumstances. i think it was mike tyson who said everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth. you have to make sure you can adapt what you have. the strategy is about britain engaging in the world in order to protect its interests and protect british values like democracy and freedom of speech and human rights. i say what we did in libya and the approach we've taken in syria is consistent with that. >> what will you say your strategic goal was in syria? >> i think two-fold. first of all, we've taken a general view as a national security council that while there are risks in the instability that the arab spring has thrown up, we've taken a general view that the advance of what i would call the building blocks of democracy, more open societies, more participating systems is a good thing in the long term for security. there will always be bumps on the road but that's a good thing so basically we need to be encouraging those sorts of developments. >> what about the use of force in august? >> the use of force that was being asked for was linked to the issue of chemical weapons. i think the debate in a way we had in parliament ended up being a debate, quite a lot of it what happened in iraq and what some people feared might happen in syria wasn't really a debate so much about the use of chemical weapons and our response to that. i think there was a tough global response, syria decided to give up its chemical weapons and progress on that is not too bad. when it comes to approaching syria, our arguments have been britain continues with its very strong position on humanitarian aid which is set out in the national security strategy. we continued our support for developments, positive under the arab spring which i think are consistent with the values in here. but we are also taking a very, very strong and careful look how we protect ourselves from the risks of terrorism and extremism which i think is a growing threat in syria. i have think we need to spend a huge amount of time working how to best mitigate that. >> but coming back to the issue of chemical weapons for a moment, presumably you had a strategic goal in mind. what was it? was it to make assad give up the chemical weapons or was it regime change or -- >> the strategic goal was not -- the strategic goal that i discussed with president obama before the vote in the house of commons was that having set a red line on chemical weapons use, we couldn't allow assad to cross it with impunity. and the sort of military action that was envisioned was purely and simply about chemical weapons. we judged -- i judged that it was important, not only in the context of syria but also the argument i made in the house of commons was that the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons has been important to britain and countries like britain for decades and so it was worthwhile taking a strong stance on this issue, not just because of syria, but the message it would send to other dictators around the world if we did not take that stand. i said happily without military action being taken, the desired effect has been achieved which is they do look as they're making real progress on giving up chemical weapons. that's what it was about. it was not about regime change. it was not about broadening the -- >> we are all concerned about the implications of people in syria -- certainly with this country honing skills in combat, acquiring new techniques and so on. was that discussed with the national security council? >> yes, in great detail. all through our discussion about syria. syria has been a real difficult challenge for policymakers all over the western world. nobody wants to get involved in conflicts. but on the other hand, everyone can see right from the start this was a conflict which was going to drive extremism and instability and cause huge problems in the region. that's been a massive challenge. all we've discussed about syria we discussed about the dangers of british people traveling to syria, extremism, terrorists returning home. i think it's extremely worrisome at that moment. in the house of commons we are debating how we should take away people's citizenship. so we have a government response which is securing our borders, discouraging people from traveling to syria, working with allies to deal with the terrorist threat, stopping people coming back, etc., etc. i mean, it's a very big focus for us right now. >> and the decision with the national security council? >> that was something we have looked at in the national i ask unanimous consent. i don't recall if the decision was taken for that particular measure. she has been empowered by the national security council to look at these issues. >> that's very helpful. this isn't just about foreign policy. domestic elements to that. but there are obviously other issues where people might say, hang on, defending country against terrorism we put 600 million a year into counterterrorism. another two billion pounds on intelligence account. yet, we have people at the moment having problems with floods and particularly on flood defense i think we were at 560 million, rising next year. does the national security council get involved in deciding how to allocate resources between the different risks on the national risk list and if so how do you reach a conclusion? >> it's a very good question. what we have is a national risk assessment as well as a national risk register which is a document we used to try and assess these risks. we discuss that and agree and try to make sure we're dealing with risks in an appropriate way. it's very difficult to try and measure up the amount you spend on one subject with what you spend on another. i can't pretend there is an exact science in it, but i would say because all these risks and risk registers are brought together in the national security secretary, at least we have one part of government trying to measure all this up and the committee then looks at it. >> so do you look at those resource choices? >> we, we do look at resource choices. specifically in terms of intelligence. but it is quite a good example of the national security council in action. the budget comes in front of the n.s.c. and we have to -- it's a good moment where the politicians can act as inquisitors to the experts how we got it right between counterterrorism and espionage and wider broader intelligence spending. do you measure up flood on the one hand to the chance of terrorism on the other? well, they are all in the national risk register. there is a science where you have the exact amount of money in the right place. >> 600 million -- >> you're bringing it together. you're looking at your potential weaknesses and you are uhle' try to make sure you are correctly identifying the gaps. >> has the national security council discussed flooding? >> we have a subcommittee -- national risk register, national risk assessment and we have a subcommittee that looks at resilience and threats and hazards, but flooding has more generally been dealt with through cobra. i think it's a mistake to think that the n.s.c. is entirely strategic and cobra is entirely operational. i do use cobra to address issues where you need a -- it slightly wider than the national security council and flooding is a good example of that. >> and part of that process, do you have a long-term plan with the impact of climate change on the u.k.? have you considered which parts of the infrastructure is threatened by rising sea levels? >> we, we had discussions in the national security council about climate change. we need to have another one before the meeting. we also have a piece of work that's been done on critical infrastructure and the potential threat to critical infrastructure, including from floods and from rising sea levels and that has been considered. i want to make sure i'm not misleading the committee in any way. the critical infrastructure is something that's coordinated by the n.s.s. and then get some -- put to ministers. >> mr. prime minister, talking about the reorganization of the ministry of defense. this committee's report last year mentioned the fact that the future army 2020, for example, we joining the structure of the reserves has not been something that's come before the national security council. do you think we were right to be concerned about that? >> i never want to criticize it. my nephew has done a fantastic job. i think it's actually true to say that the national security council did discuss the army structure before the announcement was made. so i don't want to give the impression this was a process entirely outside -- >> i think the secretary of state -- >> right. ok. [inaudible] i think you have a fair point. it was done by the n.s.c. a piece of it was sorted out later, was the overall structure of the army. and i think i'm right saying the reserve work was commissioned by the n.s.c. and the result of that and the future structure of reserves versus regulars, that was discussed by the n.s.c. before announcement. have i got that right? >> that is good to know. >> i think if you're saying, look, you should have done the thing in the go, sometimes these things a few iterations. >> probably impossible. >> thank you. prime minister, still on security but changing the emphasis somewhat, risk of public perception. mention has been made of flooding. if you ask lots of people they would say flooding. when we had incidents -- i'm wondering to what extent your strategy, which you outlined all the economic benefits, which we all would agree with, who is responsible for engaging the public so their perception of risk is not just a knee jerk reaction to the latest problem? and that when somebody challenges what the government is doing, you're actually able to extend. we are talking about syria. you said even debate in the house focused on iraq. so how do you deal with that? who in government is responsible for getting that kind of message about public perceptions of britain? >> i hope by having a national security council people can see that these risks in the end it falls to the prime minister trying to explain how we look at risks and the steps we take and what we're trying to do to keep our country safe. i think our scientists can probably help by forming the debate about risks and probabilities. i think also your committee is helping because you're looking at our strategy and you're saying, well, have you had enough consideration of this and have you looked at those risks? i think in the end have a strategy, explain what it is. the prime minister has to front it up. the scientists can help by explaining some of the probabilities and risks and that's probably the best you can do. coming back to this flooding versus terrorism, i think people want to know we're doing everything possible to protect dwellings from flooding and we have a forward investment program and all the rest of it. i think people understand there are severe weather events that can affect your country. you do everything you can to mitigate but in the end you can't mitigate against every single thing. whereas these appalling terrorist events, which can be so indiscriminant and are such huge risks, they want to know you're doing everything possible to prevent them from happening in the first place. >> do you think that the recent problems that we have all seen about the snowden revelation, the way in which they have been publicized largely by some people actually undermining public confidence in our security agencies? and if so, who's responsible for defending the agencies, explaining and getting some perspective to some of the difficult discussions? >> i think first of all, in response to snowden, i think what we have to do is make sure we're confident that the governance procedures for the intelligence services are robust, the intelligence commissioners. i keep asking myself, do we have a good system in place? and i think we have. we're trying to improve it. in terms of, has it dented public confidence in the work of the security agencies? i haven't seen the opinion polling, but my sense is that the public reaction it's a r as opposed to some of the media reaction, look, we have intelligence because it's a dangerous world and there are bad people that want to do terrible things to us and we should support these intelligence services and the work they do. i think the public reaction, what i felt in terms of what people's reaction has been, has been pretty robust. who's responsible for defending the security cells and explaining what they do? i think i have a responsibility. i feel like i'm the minister for the intelligence service and i have the responsibility to stand up for them, thank them publicly because they can't be thanked publicly as other emergency services are and try to explain what they do. i've done some of that. i think they are often the best spokesmen -- spokespeople for themselves. i think their appearance recently was excellent. i think the speech that the head of the security cell was very good summary of the threats we face. i don't want them to make a speech every week. i think actually they could help set the agenda and explain what they do perhaps better than anyone. >> final question. don't you think there is potential danger, the lack of public support for a government might feel is essential to do in certain circumstances might be undermined of what would be needed and the better explanation and shouldn't that be part of your planning when you're actually talking about your strategy, the strategy should not be -- it should be about explaining it? >> i think it's a very fair point. i think if you're saying, should the prime minister, the foreign secretary responsible for two of the agencies, should the three of us do more to explain, defend and give people a sense of why their work is so important? yes. i agree with that. i think we should do more. if you're worried about damage -- yes, i'm worried about what snowden did with respect to security. i would ask the newspaper to think before they act because we are in danger of making ourselves less safe as a result. as i say -- but i think the public reaction, as i judge it, has not been one of sort of shock horror. it's been much more intelligence agencies carry out intelligence work could. >> thank you. in hindsight, prime minister, is there anything that the n.s.c. has missed? >> i think there are some specific subjects of quite a technical nature that organizations like yours and others have drawn to our attention. i am not a scientist. so e.m.p.'s and space weather, i think that's actually useful to give the officials to say, have we got this covered, have we got that covered? i think we need to go faster with this work about really examining plans, whether it's the budget, whether it's the conflict pool, can we do more to make this organization really drive policy rather than just strategy? i think we should probably do more on that. in terms of missing things, there are lots of things that the pundits and the politicians and the experts have not foreseen in the development of global affairs but that's why, yes, have a strategy but recognize you need to adapt it to changing circumstances. >> one thing that we commented early on that we missed in the original national security strategy, we're about to go on to the next one, was the question the americans announcing their pivot to asia. it has enormous strategic consequences. that wasn't touched on at all in the security strategy. >> i think i'm right in saying, when was the speech, the great obama speech? was it 2010 or 2011? i say, we are doing our own thing. if you look at the amount of foreign office activity in southeast asia, the asian countries, what we're doing in china and india, william is changing that department and focusing on the high growth emerging powers and all the rest of it. obviously we haven't mentioned our gulf strategy which is a breakthrough too, to recognize there is a whole set of countries which we have a strong history, strong relations where we should try to build on those relationships. so i think we're doing our own thing. i think if i had a wish of replaying it all, i think the thing the sdsr did in terms of moving us away of the battle tanks in western europe and towards flexible, deployable future technologies, cyber, drones and the rest of it, i which we had done more and faster. and i suppose i'd apply that to the foreign policy side as well. i think this prosperity, trade diplomacy agenda which now is being driven very hard across government, i would have liked to have done more even sooner because i think it's going to be part of our future national success. if we can, you know, massively increase exports to china. that will be a big part of britain's future success story. you remember from being foreign secretary, getting the tanker to move, you would say, i wish i pushed it harder and faster. >> thank you. we'll go on for the next national security strategy. >> thank you very much, chair. when peter was in the role, he told us he would take two years to prepare a new strategy. since then there's been a 25% -- the work on the next strategy hasn't started. was he wrong? can you tell us when it will start? >> the work is beginning on both national security strategy and particularly on sdsr because the next sdsr we need to start planning now. look, you can argue forever about how long these things take, but i'm so keen on implementing what we said we were going to do that i put more weight on that. as i say, my fear is that if you move faster on writing new strategies you -- all the people that are trying to deliver what we need in libya or in syria, they'll come off that and they'll start writing strategies again. >> will it be fundamentally different or -- am i right in assuming it won't be finished until the next government is in place? >> both? >> the n.s.c.? >> you're right. they'll get a span a period of the next election. we should be starting now. i don't think -- and if you go back over the national security strategy, it needs to refresh. i don't think it will be a complete overhaul. i think i hinted to margaret if i'm responsible for its eventual outcome, i think it will have that trade prosperity agenda perhaps more strongly. i wouldn't expect a huge change. and the national security strategy or the sdsr. the strategy we took in the sdsr, having a gap in capacity, the exciting thing as we come into the next one, the gap will be coming to an end. we'll have fantastic new carrier in the high seas very soon. >> with planes. >> with planes and people in it. >> can we look between the three of us on this panel some of the specific future things? in particular, we talked about the america. what about the european union? which we will not know in the next strategy whether the u.k. will be part of the european union on or not. so will that be spelled out, the implications being in or out and specifically, how it will change if the u.k. ceases to be a member of the european union? >> my strategy linked in with the national security strategy that we secure a referendum and i want to recommend that we should remain part of a reformed european union and i plan on the basis of success rather than the basis of anything else. but we don't -- european issues, we haven't dealt within the national security council. we dealt with them elsewhere in government. i accept it has important implications to the u.k. i think we should plan on the basis of what we want to achieve. >> yes. it's a democratic vote. if people are going to vote the other way, despite your recommendation, it has strategic implications. i mean, we have a vote this year on scottish independence and the government produced a series of papers setting out their case where the u.k. is better together. will you not do the same thing for the european union? >> well, we have done with the review looked at the various areas. i think once the negotiation is complete, there will then be a period before a referendum where the two sides in that debate can set out their arguments. i -- as you know, we are in a coalition government. the coalition partners have slightly different views about europe. my judge is if we use the n.s.c. to debate and discuss europe issues, we would have a second reading debate. what i want is the actions necessary to deliver it. i think it's better to keep europe out of it. >> well, another specific issue and i'll be quick about this one. we heard in the past that our food security and essentially we are about three days away from a food crisis. most of our food is in transit. we found that out with the truck driver strike. do you believe you have addressed enough about how some disruption of communications could lead to a food crisis and have you responded? is that something that's central to the security strategy? because clearly food shortages could move the country to a crisis in the span of a short period of time? >> what we have done is handling the threats to food supplies, one did a review of emergency planning. it concluded there was relatively good resilience in the u.k. food supply chain. and carried out the assessment in 2010. it's part of the national critical infrastructure plan that we have. you're definitely right. a country that imports food, that has a lot of just in time delivery and all the rest of it, dislocation, whether volcanic ash from iceland or truck driver strike or what have you does impact those things relatively quickly. i'm satisfied that we have examined the issues, but that's not to say, you know, you don't get effects when infrastructure is threatened. >> prime minister, in the annual report on n.s.s. and the sdsr published last december, there was a paragraph which started with the sentence -- it has been a government priority to introduce the program to preserve the ability of the security intelligence and law enforcement agencies to have the access they require in communications. it goes on and he with changes to the existing legislative stream work may be required to maintain these vital capabilities. and i understand that the interceptions commissioner is reviewing our legislation. and will no doubt report to you. edward snowden's leaked material, is there anything you could share with us today to comment about the position of the united kingdom in the light of what was said in this report? >> well, first of all, i'd agree with the report that over time we are going to have to modernize the legislative framework and practice when it comes to dealing with communications data. it's obviously a politically quite contentious topic. i'm not sure that we'll make progress on it in the coming months in terms of legislation. there may be things short of legislation that we can do. but i do think that politicians, police chiefs, the intelligence services, we got a role in explaining what this is all about. because i think, while i wouldn't go back to what i said earlier, i don't think snowden had an enormous public impact. it raises questions about who has access to my data and why. but i'm absolutely convinced that proper rules for communications data is essential. i didn't think we got it across to people yet the basics of this. most of the serious crimes, child abductions, who called who and when and where was the telephone at the time, not the content of the call, but communications data is absolutely vital. and i think we need the police chiefs, the investigators and others and the politicians explaining what this is about. i love watching, as i probably should stop telling people, crime dramas on the television. there's highly a crime drama that a crime is solved without using the data of a mobile communications device. and that's not about the content. it's about -- and the problem we have to explain to people is as you move from a world of people having fixed telephones and mobile phones to skype and phones on the internet and all of that, if we don't modernize the practice and modernize the law, over time we will have the communications data to solve these horrible crimes on a shrinking proportion of the total use of devices. and that is a real problem for keeping people safe. now, i don't know if that was the clearest explanation i could give but we need to make this explanation really, really clear and get it out to people and build, perhaps the start of the next parliament, a cross-party case, a sensible legislation to deal with this issue. i think it is possible, but i think it's going to take a lot of work by politicians across parties to try and take that civil liberties concern seriously but get them in proportion so we can then make some progress. >> thank you, prime minister. i think we'd all agree with that. and i think it follows on very well from what -- perhaps this is something the n.s.c. can look at, how to get what you said over to the general public, the difference between data and content. >> well, the best attempt i've seen so far, i think one or two police chiefs wrote some articles in the newspapers and i thought when they explained just how much this involved in child abduction cases, in solving murders and solving serious crimes, you know, i absolutely see and my work with security services and how vital it is to prevent terrorist attacks, i -- you know, i feel passionate about this. i feel the first responsibility of my job is to help keep people safe. and the fact it's used so much in crime is a very straightforward thing that people can get a hold of. >> thank you. i want to ask you about something else. prime minister, we all understand the desirability of foreign investment and so on. but has the n.s.c. looked closely enough at the issue of foreign ownership of parts of our critical infrastructure? i'm thinking of energy, nuclear power and waste, water and so on. and are you confident that there isn't reason to be concerned about whether or not there should be some clear red lines drawn about foreign ownership? >> well, we do have a proper system in place for examining whether inward investments and things like infrastructure are in our national interests. but actually sir kim and i were discussing earlier there will be a proper n.s.c. consideration of this because we have slightly different procedures for some slightly different parts of our infrastructure. and i think it would be good to have a collective discussion when it comes to telecoms and electricity networks and gas networks and what have you that we have all the rules we need in place. so we will do that. i would -- and when we had a specific issue,, we properly responded to the i.s.c. report. i would not underplay that the fact that britain saying to the world that we welcome it with investment and we welcome investment into, you know, key parts of infrastructure. the fact that the chinese will be invested, i think is a good thing. it means we can free up more of our own capital to spend on roads and railways and other things. and it also makes an enormous -- it's a very good message for britain going around the world. we are not embarrassed but delighted that indian capital is rebuilding the british car industry. we're delighted that the chinese are going to own part of water, investing in heathrow. i think it's one of our calling cards that we are an open economy that encourages people to invest. so, yes, by all means, let's check if there were security issues we could act properly and appropriately and we will do, but don't lose the position as a great open economy. i was very struck by one of the large chinese investors, britain is better than all. i thought that was a good endorsement. >> thank you. >> prime minister, i think when you're saying you wish you could spend more time and effort on asia, some had a history of trade in this country. [inaudible] i just want to get your view. mr. gates made a comment the other day, former defense secretary of america, to ensure global reach in support of our long-term security interests and our part with a crucial relationship with the united states navy, we must guarantee that we have high-end capability with the necessary number and mix of ships? you started on the 31st of january, 2013, your words, your strong view was that the defense budget will require year-on-year growth beyond 2015. as a leading member of nato, no less than 2% of our g.d.p. for our defense budget, i hope you're able to confirm that this is still very, very much your view and intention and will be emphasized at the nato conference this september. >> i don't move away from the importance of our defense budget and what that should mean for the future at all. where i take issue slightly with former secretary gates is i think actually if you look at the equipment program for our navy, it is absolutely a full spectrum equipment program. you have the two carriers under construction. you have the type 45 destroyers coming into action. you got the future frigate program that is there. you have the submarines. you have the trident submarines and the pledge to renew them and the -- in terms of the navy it has a very bright future and it is a full spectrum capability from, you know, the nuclear deterrent at one end to, you know, smaller vessels right at the other end. so i don't accept that we are, you know, shrinking the navy or it's not a full spectrum capability. it absolutely is. as what you say about asia, i completely agree. we've seen a big increase in our exports to china, for instance, but we're still only 1% of chinese exports. we can, you know, quite easily get to 2% which will be great for us without being a huge change. >> prime minister, there are some who would suggest having more -- to meet the very ambitions you have been talking about today will be more than useful. >> i have this debate with the navy all the time. because clearly what's been happening is that we are having fewer, more expensive ships, type 45's, you know, are pretty close to a billion pounds each. they are phenomenally expensive. they are the most modern, most effective one of our type 45s that's doing more at the moment. i think it's getting quite a lot of attention. there is obviously a discussion we should have, is there a role for other sorts of vessels we should be using as well and what's the tradeoffs between these multipurpose ships that can do everything from drug interdiction in the caribbean right through carrier escorts or complex warfare, is it right to do that or should you try to have more ships that are carrying out more different tasks? and i think it's a debate that will continue. up until now the answer is let's have the multirole ships that can do everything. >> let me switch a subject and that's the role of the n.s.c. and that's energy and energy policy. there are two aspects of it. you have the shorter term policy and the longer term policy. am i right in saying that the only real security strategy is the department of energy and climate change document which obviously leaves out foreign policy, planning and range of other issues and frankly looking 50 or 100 years ahead as to what we should be considering, is that something that almost at the top of the agenda in the years to come on long term? i'll come back to short term in a moment. >> clearly energy security is vital. we were talking earlier about how do you define security? clearly energy security, the ability to power your economy, to power your homes and businesses and that's the key aspect of security and it is something taken seriously by the national security council. we have discussed it and taken papers on it. i would argue that we have a good strategy there. we are renewing that point and we will follow next. we set out a very clear strategy so everyone knows what the rules and the costs are for investing in renewables. and we're moving ahead, not just with new gas plants as appropriate but also with onshore shale gas which i think could be a major industry for britain in the future. so i think we got a long-term plan. and we got to make sure that every piece of that is put in place. >> and i think our position does put us -- being reliant on so much. >> i think if you look at our energy penetration of imports compared with other countries, because of the north sea, we had a relatively good record. we got the interconnector with france. a potential interconnector with norway. if we make the most of shale gas, then as north sea gas runs down we'll have a new national resource. so when i look at our position in europe and look at, you know, how we linet we are on imports, i'm -- i think we're relatively secure position. we must keep up. that's why the relationship with gasa and others in terms of imported gas, the relationship with norway is fantastically important. making sure we get a decent contribution for renewables. >> could i bring up the other thing that is a really serious problem? we believe our country is facing potentially a very serious crisis of supply and competitiveness at this very moment in time we speak. and are you prepared to set aside the targets in the 2008 climate change act in order to get through this period? if you're unable to act unilaterally, will you seek consensus with the major countries on behalf of the commitments? prime minister, what i ask with that is, do you accept now in retrospect these targets, those set by the former government but were endorsed by you, were a huge mistake that threatens the severely damaged and indeed our already damaging europe competitive and growth prospect in years to come? >> prime minister, this view that he expressed may not be shared by -- >> of course. two questions in there. one is the climate change act framework, can that work for us in the long term? my answer is yes, it can. we set these budgets. we have to make sure they're achievable and deliverable. i supported the climate change act and i think we can make it work. the second part i think about the european targets which i think we are capable of meeting, i think you go back over the history and argue whether it was right to have as many specific targets, you might come to a different answer. europe is reviewing -- the e.u. is reviewing this at the moment about whether the specific targets are correct. but look, the question i ask and i got the energy industries, the national grid and everybody else around the table, i checked that our situation was robust, is are we content with the rules we have in place and everything we have in place that we are energy secure in terms of our short, medium and long-term future or are there any changes we need to make about decommissioning coal plants, bringing on gas more quickly or anything else and the answer i got was that the rules and regulations and capacity mechanisms are in place so we have the energy security that we need. so the question you put is very important. but i don't think either the climate change act or our own situation is one that we ought to be concerned with but one that i think we need to make major change. >> [inaudible] this is just not my view. it's head of the international energy agency based in paris and in london here today, we were discussing only the subject of deep, deep critical concern about europe's competitiveness. >> the european union -- they'll debate at the march council. they'll think very carefully about international competitiveness and prices. the united states has 10,000 shale gas wells. in europe we got about 100. and so i think we do need to think about the competitiveness picture. i completely agree with that. i don't think throwing out the window the concern about carbon emission reduction. what is the market in europe, that would be a very good thing. make sure we make use of shale gas. we are committed to cheap green energy and keep driving down the price of these new technologies. if we do all those things we can be green and competitive. >> we are almost out of time. i just want to take you back for a moment. to something you said about the maritime -- about the navy. i am reminded about what was said recently, unless we change our current course, not enough people. and the navy -- [inaudible] and i applaud what you said about the navy. >> well, i think -- to be fair, what was said, if spending reductions went further, there would be a danger of what was called hollowing out. if we were in danger of that happening with what we have. the point i would make is that in the sdsr we made decisions with the chiefs of the defense staff around the table that we're about the future capabilities of the u.k. and a very strong argument was made, which i completely agree with, that we need to have a navy that is full spectrum, that's got everything from those submarines, the type 45's, to the future frigates and everything else. and that was a real priority. we've taken this gap in capability, which we'll refresh with the new carriers, and that's incredibly important. i don't see -- obviously want to do everything we can on value for money, on efficiency. i think if we do that i don't see any reason why we won't be able to properly run and crew these excellent assets. and also i think it's encouraging people to join the navy. the opportunities when you got this absolutely world first-class equipment that's running out of our ship-yards at the moment, it is terrific to encourage people to join up. >> can i applaud what you just said about the gap being replaced by new carriers? [laughter] >> you have about two minutes. >> [inaudible] in a public meeting, if the secretaries get their way and break scotland up from the kingdom, what are the national security implications of that? i think you stated publicly some of those implications but i wonder if you could elaborate a little bit more. >> in a nutshell, we are more secure together as well as more prosperous and all the rest of it. scotland makes an enormous contribution to the u.k.'s defense. i will be making a speech soon which is it's very important everyone in the rest of the united kingdom emphasizes how much we benefit of scotland staying in the united kingdom and that's something i feel passionate about. >> we're grateful, prime minister. and i think we got through most of the things we wanted to get through. i think you would have gathered that we are very anxious about the national security strategy, that the next one will be better. one point we have made repeatedly is how much we would like to see it drawn outside experts and other views. without any disrespect to the people we have. a couple of times it's been suggested that the government might consult this committee and we very much hope that it will and we will do our best to be cooperative and helpful. >> thank you. in the end, the government has got to own this document. so it's got to reflect our collective view. but the more input and also identifying gaps and weaknesses that your committee does frankly the better. >> very kind of you. thank you very much indeed. order, order. the meeting is now adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] c-span -- we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences, and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service of private industry. we are c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and funded by your local satellite or cable provider to watch is in hd, like this on facebook, and follow us on twitter. >> the house and senate are both scheduled to be in session on monday. house republicans will be returning after their three-day retreat last week in cambridge, maryland. there is more about the retreat and a look at what is expected when lawmakers return. host: our guest is cq roll calls senior editor and writes their morning briefing. the house just wrapped up two days of the conference over the eastern shore of maryland. it seems the two key issues that have come out of that, one can -- one, dealing with the debt limit. second, immigration. how do leaders plan to address that in the weeks ahead? guest: i think they were trying to get the pulse of the rank-and-file members on whether they would allow a clean debt orit extension in february whatever they choose to do. stage of the vote, or whether they will attach some preconditions. the indications are there are at least -- there is some sentiment in time and increase in the debt ceiling to repealing part of the health care law that deals with payments to health insurers mitigate the risk of pricing policies. it is a technical thing called risk corridor screwed it has become the gop's next big target in obamacare. whether they decide to make this linkage is still to be decided, but there has been some strong sentiment and at least the republican caucus for doing it. >> as they were wrapping up the meeting, you tweeted about it, saying they decided to tie the debt limit to the obamacare provision. is that another way to try to slow down the implementation of a -- of obamacare? therehink they sense that could be some political currency in portraying this as a subsidy to big insurance companies. toically, health plans have to sell policies to everyone now under the law. they could wind up with an unhealthy pool of customers and pay more claims than they forecast. this is a way for the government to at least temporarily have their back and would cover half or more of the excess cost. prudentthat is being after you sort of retooled the entire health system or whether it is a giveaway depends on the political framing, of course. immigration issue, i understand speaker boehner issued a one page report with key principles on immigration. what are we hearing about those? >> this is big. this is the furthest of the house majority has gone in addressing the issue. he sort of downplayed these principless, which are kind of talking points, but there was some resemblance in some areas to the deal that was struck in the senate by the gang of eight. however, the house has rejected doing a comprehensive bill like the senate last year. they want to do a more piecemeal approach. they want to address the sense. they want to address employment verification. they want to address legal status of the so-called dreamers. the important thing is they would give some legal status, short of citizenship, to the approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country. >> anything in terms of legislation is still at least weeks, if not a couple of months, off, correct? >> i think this is just political calculations and survivorship. a lot of members are very uncomfortable with taking the vote. they are afraid they would be primaried. how do you accommodate those concerns when you are in leadership? you cannot keep delaying -- keep delaying the vote. maybe we see something on border security, letting agriculture workers go back and forth and keep their legal status, something that everyone can sort of agree on. i'm not sure they are going to go as far as dealing with legal status of undocumented people this year. >> before the republican retreat, the house passed the farm bill. it is the senate's turn in the coming week. what does it look like for passage in the senate? >> reporters are expecting a strong show of support on a procedural vote monday afternoon. that would set up a vote to clear the whole thing, the five-year package, a huge piece of legislation sometimes tuesday -- sometime tuesday afternoon. the last big the bipartisan legislative deal this year, unless something unexpected happens on taxes or in case they do immigration. i think it deals with so many different provisions, and it has been the subject of three years of negotiations. when you have something generally everybody deals -- everybody agrees on, dylan with agriculture research, dairy, people are likely not going to pick up a big fuss. it is a conference agreement. i think it is going to be cleared. only inis in store not this senator but in the house in terms of major pieces of legislation? what do you see? >> for next week, we sort of just have the speakers schedule. things they are doing in the short run is a couple of public lands and hunting and fishing bills. i don't know if that's count is major -- if that counts as major. these would expand access to bureau of land management lands for recreational fishing and shooting. it sounds innocuous, but it has some interesting language. it would bar enforcement of individual firearm regulations in army corps of engineers water resource projects, for example. they will meet on monday to decide how they will debate this, whether they will allow amendments. from there, we will see if it will be a huge floor fight. >> senior editor adriel bett elheim, thank you for the preview of next week. a closer look now at the house and senate. gaveling back in on monday, the house reconvenes at noon eastern for speeches. two suspension bills will be considered, including one that would require colleges to give veterans in-state tuition regardless of the place of residence. other legislation scheduled this week, a bill that eases federal restrictions on hunters and fishermen. the senate gavels in at 2:00 eastern on monday. senators will consider the five-year farm bill that passed in the house earlier this week. a vote to limit debate is expected at 5:30. if it meets the 60-vote requirement, a vote on final passage could occur on tuesday. as always, you can watch the house live on c-span, the senate, live on c-span 2. wreck.s in a car i wrote about it extensively in my book. the whole time i was in the hospital, not injured really -- i had a cut on my leg and a broken ankle -- i was praying that the other person in the car would be ok. the other person in the car was one of my best friends, which i didn't know. i didn't really recognize that at the site of the crash. overnk, because i prayed and over and over for him to be ok, and then he wasn't, i thought, well, nobody listened. god wasn't listening. my prayer wasn't answered. i went through a very long time of not believing and not believing that prayers could be answered. it took me a long time really and a lot of growing up to come back to faith. >> first lady laura bush, monday night at 9:00 eastern, live on c-span and c-span 3. also on c-span radio and c-span.org. watch our recent interview with misses bush at the george w. bush presidential center in dallas at 10:30. withming up next, "q&a" robert dallek, talking about his book on the kennedy white house. time at thequestion british house of commons. later, british prime minister david cameron talking about national security issues with the uk's joint committee on national security >> robert dalleck, the last paragraph of your entire book, i could not resist saying thank you to barack obama who has graciously hosted four dinners for presidential historians where i had a close-up look at
strategy. but i don't -- you know, strategy always has to be adaptable and has to be changeable according to circumstances. i think it was mike tyson who said everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth. you have to make sure you can adapt what you have. but i would say the strategy is about britain engaging in the world to protect its interest and promote british values like democracy and freedom of speech and human rights. i would argue what we did in libya and the approach in syria is consistent with that. >> what would you say your strategic goal was in syria? >> i think two-fold. first of all, we've taken a general view as a national security council that while there are risks in the instability that the arab spring has thrown up, we've taken a general view that the advance of what i would call the building blocks of democracy, more open societies, more participating systems, is a good thing in the long term for security. there will always be bumps on the road but that's a good thing, so we should basically be encouraging those sorts of developments. >> what about the use of force in august? >> the use of force that was being asked for was linked to the issue of chemical weapons. i think the debate in a way we had in parliament ended up being a debate, quite a lot of it what happened in iraq and what some people feared might happen in syria wasn't really a debate so much about the use of chemical weapons and our response to that. fortuitously, there was a tough global response. syria decided to give up its chemical weapons and progress on that is not too bad. but when it comes to approaching syria, our arguments have been britain continues with its very strong position on humanitarian aid, which is set out in the national security strategy. we continued our support for developments that are positive under the arab spring which i think are consistent with the values in here. but we are also taking a very, very strong and careful look how we protect ourselves from the risks of terrorism and extremism which i think is a growing threat in syria. i have think we need to spend a huge amount of time working how to best mitigate that. >> but coming back to the issue of chemical weapons for a moment, presumably you had a strategic goal in mind. what was it? was it to make assad give up the chemical weapons or was it regime change or -- >> the strategic goal was not -- the strategic goal that i discussed with president obama before the vote in the house of commons was that having set a red line on chemical weapons use, we couldn't allow assad to cross it with impunity. and the sort of military action that was envisioned was purely and simply about chemical weapons. we judged -- i judged that it was important, not only in the context of syria but also the argument i made in the house of commons was that the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons has been important to britain and countries like britain for decades and so it was worthwhile taking a strong stance on this issue, not just because of syria, but the message it would send to other dictators around the world if we did not take that stand. i said happily without military action being taken, the desired effect has been achieved which is they do look as they're making real progress on giving up chemical weapons. that's what it was about. it was not about regime change. it was not about broadening the conflict. it was purely and simply about that issue. >> we are all concerned about the implications of people in -- people who fought in syria. having honed their skills in combat, acquired new techniques and so on. was that discussed with the national security council? >> yes, in great detail. all through our discussion about syria. syria has been a real difficult challenge for policymakers all over the western world. because nobody wants to get involved in conflicts. but on the other hand, everyone can see right from the start this was a conflict which was going to drive extremism and instability and cause huge problems in the region. that's been a massive challenge. but every discussion we had about syria we also discussed the dangers of british people traveling to syria, the dangers of extremism, the dangers of terrorists returning home. i think the signs in syria are extremely worrying at that front of the moment. that is why we are downstairs in the house of commons debating how we should be able to take away people's citizenship. we have a cross-government response. securing our borders, discouraging people from traveling to syria. working with allies to deal with the terrorist threat. stopping people coming back, etc., etc. it's a very big focus for us right now. >> was that a decision of the national security council? >> that was something we have looked at in the national i ask in the security council. i don't recall if the decision was taken for that particular measure. >> that's very helpful. this isn't just about foreign policy. there is a domestic element. but there are other issues where people might say, hang on, defending country against terrorism we put 600 million a year into counterterrorism. another two billion pounds on the single intelligence account. yet we have people at the moment having problems with floods, and our expenditure on flood defense was last year 560 million, rising next year. does the national security council get involved in deciding how to allocate resources between the different risks on the national risk list and if so how do you reach a conclusion? >> it's a very good question. what we have is a national risk assessment as well as a national risk register which is a document we used to try and assess these risks. we discuss that and agree and try to make sure we're dealing with risks in an appropriate way. it's very difficult to try and measure up the amount you spend on one subject with what you spend on another. i can't pretend there is an exact science in it, but i would say because all these risks and risk registers are brought together in the national security secretariat, at least we have one partner government looking to measure all this up and the committee then looks at it. >> so do you look at those resource choices? >> we, we do look at resource choices. specifically in terms of intelligence. the budget comes in front of the n.s.c. and we have to -- it's a good moment where the politicians can act as inquisitors to the experts how we got it right between counterterrorism and espionage, between counterterrorism policing and broader things. the question, do you measure up floods on the one hand and the chance of terrorism on the other, it is quite difficult to argue there is a science where you can work out where you have the exact amount of money in the right place. >> 600 million -- >> you're bringing it together. you're looking at your potential weaknesses and you are trying to make sure you correctly identify the gap. >> has the national security council discussed flooding? >> we have discussed flooding in the context of a national risk register, national risk assessment. we have a specific subcommittee that looks at resilient sense threats and hazards, but flooding has more generally been dealt with through cobra. i think it's a mistake to think that the n.s.c. is entirely strategic and cobra is entirely operational. i do use cobra to address issues where you need a -- it slightly wider than the national security council and flooding is a good example of that. >> do you have, as part of that process, do you have a long-term plan with the impact of climate change on the u.k.? have you considered which parts of the critical national infrastructure are most threatened by rising sea levels? >> we had discussions in the national security council about climate change. we need to have another one before the next meeting. we also have a piece of work that's been done on critical infrastructure and the potential threat to critical infrastructure, including from floods and from rising sea levels and that has been considered. i want to make sure i'm not misleading the committee in any way. the critical infrastructure is something that's coordinated by the n.s.s. and then get some -- put to ministers. >> thank you. >> mr. prime minister, talking about the reorganization of the ministry of defense. this committee's report last year mentioned the fact that the future army 2020, for example, will be joined the structure of the reserves, has not been something that's come before the national security council. do you think we were right to be concerned about that? >> i never want to criticize it. my nephew has done a fantastic job. but i think it's actually true to say that the national security council did discuss the army structure before the announcement was made. so i don't want to give the impression this was a process entirely outside -- >> i think it was the secretary of state for defense. >> all right. i will blame him instead. [laughter] i think you have a fair point. it was done by the n.s.c. a piece of it was sorted out later, was the overall structure of the army. but i am right in saying the reserve work was committed -- commissioned by the n.s.c., and the results of that and the future structure of reserves versus regulars was discussed by the n.s.c. before announcement. have i got that right? i think if you're saying, look, you should have done the thing in one go, sometimes these things take a few iterations to get absolutely right. >> probably impossible. >> thank you. prime minister, still on security but changing the emphasis somewhat, risk of -- and public perception. mention has been made of flooding. i am wondering, to what extent your strategy which you outlined, who is responsible for engaging the -- the riskat there is not just a knee-jerk reaction to the latest problem. , we areebody challenges talking about syria a moment ago. how do you feel about that? message about the public perception. have a national security council, people can see these risk our love being looked at as a whole. we are trying to explain how we look at risk and the steps to take to make sure the people are safe. i think the scientists can probably help by forming a debate about risk improbabilities. you are looking at the strategy and saying, have you done enough consideration of this and looked at those risks? .n the end, have a strategy the site is can help by explaining some of those risk. that is probably the best you can do. people want to know what we're doing to protect from flooding. i think people understand that there are severe weather events that can affect your country. you do everything you can to mitigate but in the end you can't mitigate against every single thing. whereas these appalling terrorist events, which can be so indiscriminant and are such huge risks, they want to know you're doing everything possible to prevent them from happening in the first place. >> do you think that the recent problems that we have all seen about the snowden revelation, the way in which they have been publicized largely by some people actually undermining public confidence in our security agencies? and if so, who's responsible for defending the agencies, explaining and getting some perspective to some of the difficult discussions? >> i think first of all, in response to snowden, i think what we have to do is make sure we're confident that the governance procedures for the intelligence services are robust, the intelligence commissioners. i keep asking myself, do we have a good system in place? and i think we have. we're trying to improve it. in terms of, has it dented public confidence in the work of the security agencies? i haven't seen the opinion polling, but my sense is that the public reaction it's a r as opposed to some of the media reaction, look, we have intelligence because it's a dangerous world and there are bad people that want to do terrible things to us and we should support these intelligence services and the work they do. i think the public reaction, what i felt in terms of what people's reaction has been, has been pretty robust. who's responsible for defending the security cells and explaining what they do? i think i have a responsibility. i feel like i'm the minister for the intelligence service and i have the responsibility to stand up for them, thank them publicly because they can't be thanked publicly as other emergency services are and try to explain what they do. i've done some of that. i think they are often the best spokesmen -- spokespeople for themselves. i think their appearance recently was excellent. i think the speech that the head of the security cell was very good summary of the threats we face. i don't want them to make a speech every week. i think actually they could help set the agenda and explain what they do perhaps better than anyone. >> final question. don't you think there is potential danger, the lack of public support for a government might feel is essential to do in certain circumstances might be undermined of what would be needed and the better explanation and shouldn't that be part of your planning when you're actually talking about your strategy, the strategy should not be -- it should be about explaining it? >> i think it's a very fair point. i think if you're saying, should the prime minister, the foreign secretary responsible for two of the agencies, should the three of us do more to explain, defend and give people a sense of why their work is so important? yes. i agree with that. i think we should do more. if you're worried about damage -- yes, i'm worried about what snowden did with respect to security. i would ask the newspaper to think before they act because we are in danger of making ourselves less safe as a result. as i say -- but i think the public reaction, as i judge it, has not been one of sort of shock horror. it's been much more intelligence agencies carry out intelligence work could. >> thank you. in hindsight, prime minister, is there anything that the n.s.c. has missed? >> i think there are some specific subjects of quite a technical nature that organizations like yours and others have drawn to our attention. i am not a scientist. so e.m.p.'s and space weather, i think that's actually useful to give the officials to say, have we got this covered, have we got that covered? i think we need to go faster with this work about really examining plans, whether it's the budget, whether it's the conflict pool, can we do more to make this organization really drive policy rather than just strategy? i think we should probably do more on that. in terms of missing things, there are lots of things that the pundits and the politicians and the experts have not foreseen in the development of global affairs but that's why, yes, have a strategy but recognize you need to adapt it to changing circumstances. >> one thing that we commented early on that we missed in the original national security strategy, we're about to go on to the next one, was the question the americans announcing their pivot to asia. it has enormous strategic consequences. that wasn't touched on at all in the security strategy. >> i think i'm right in saying, when was the speech, the great obama speech? was it 2010 or 2011? i say, we are doing our own thing. if you look at the amount of foreign office activity in southeast asia, the asian countries, what we're doing in china and india, william is changing that department and focusing on the high growth emerging powers and all the rest of it. obviously we haven't mentioned our gulf strategy which is a breakthrough too, to recognize there is a whole set of countries which we have a strong history, strong relations where we should try to build on those relationships. so i think we're doing our own thing. i think if i had a wish of replaying it all, i think the thing the sdsr did in terms of moving us away of the battle tanks in western europe and towards flexible, deployable future technologies, cyber, drones and the rest of it, i which we had done more and faster. and i suppose i'd apply that to the foreign policy side as well. i think this prosperity, trade diplomacy agenda which now is being driven very hard across government, i would have liked to have done more even sooner because i think it's going to be part of our future national success. if we can, you know, massively increase exports to china. that will be a big part of britain's future success story. you remember from being foreign secretary, getting the tanker to move, you would say, i wish i pushed it harder and faster. >> thank you. we'll go on for the next national security strategy. >> thank you very much, chair. when peter was in the role, he told us he would take two years to prepare a new strategy. since then there's been a 25% -- the work on the next strategy hasn't started. was he wrong? can you tell us when it will start? >> the work is beginning on both national security strategy and particularly on sdsr because the next sdsr we need to start planning now. look, you can argue forever about how long these things take, but i'm so keen on implementing what we said we were going to do that i put more weight on that. as i say, my fear is that if you move faster on writing new strategies you -- all the people that are trying to deliver what we need in libya or in syria, they'll come off that and they'll start writing strategies again. >> will it be fundamentally different or -- am i right in assuming it won't be finished until the next government is in place? >> both? >> the n.s.c.? >> you're right. they'll get a span a period of the next election. we should be starting now. i don't think -- and if you go back over the national security strategy, it needs to refresh. i don't think it will be a complete overhaul. i think i hinted to margaret if i'm responsible for its eventual outcome, i think it will have that trade prosperity agenda perhaps more strongly. i wouldn't expect a huge change. and the national security strategy or the sdsr. the strategy we took in the sdsr, having a gap in capacity, the exciting thing as we come into the next one, the gap will be coming to an end. we'll have fantastic new carrier in the high seas very soon. >> with planes. >> with planes and people in it. >> can we look between the three of us on this panel some of the specific future things? in particular, we talked about the america. what about the european union? which we will not know in the next strategy whether the u.k. will be part of the european union on or not. so will that be spelled out, the implications being in or out and specifically, how it will change if the u.k. ceases to be a member of the european union? >> my strategy linked in with the national security strategy that we secure a referendum and i want to recommend that we should remain part of a reformed european union and i plan on the basis of success rather than the basis of anything else. but we don't -- european issues, we haven't dealt within the national security council. we dealt with them elsewhere in government. i accept it has important implications to the u.k. i think we should plan on the basis of what we want to achieve. >> yes. it's a democratic vote. if people are going to vote the other way, despite your recommendation, it has strategic implications. i mean, we have a vote this year on scottish independence and the government produced a series of papers setting out their case where the u.k. is better together. will you not do the same thing for the european union? >> well, we have done with the review looked at the various areas. i think once the negotiation is complete, there will then be a period before a referendum where the two sides in that debate can set out their arguments. i -- as you know, we are in a coalition government. the coalition partners have slightly different views about europe. my judge is if we use the n.s.c. to debate and discuss europe issues, we would have a second reading debate. what i want is the actions necessary to deliver it. i think it's better to keep europe out of it. >> well, another specific issue and i'll be quick about this one. we heard in the past that our food security and essentially we are about three days away from a food crisis. most of our food is in transit. we found that out with the truck driver strike. do you believe you have addressed enough about how some disruption of communications could lead to a food crisis and have you responded? is that something that's central to the security strategy? because clearly food shortages could move the country to a crisis in the span of a short period of time? >> what we have done is handling the threats to food supplies, one did a review of emergency planning. it concluded there was relatively good resilience in the u.k. food supply chain. and carried out the assessment in 2010. it's part of the national critical infrastructure plan that we have. you're definitely right. a country that imports food, that has a lot of just in time delivery and all the rest of it, dislocation, whether volcanic ash from iceland or truck driver strike or what have you does impact those things relatively quickly. i'm satisfied that we have examined the issues, but that's not to say, you know, you don't get effects when infrastructure is threatened. >> prime minister, in the annual report on n.s.s. and the sdsr published last december, there was a paragraph which started with the sentence -- it has been a government priority to introduce the program to preserve the ability of the security intelligence and law enforcement agencies to have the access they require in communications. it goes on and he with changes to the existing legislative stream work may be required to maintain these vital capabilities. and i understand that the interceptions commissioner is reviewing our legislation. and will no doubt report to you. edward snowden's leaked material, is there anything you could share with us today to comment about the position of the united kingdom in the light of what was said in this report? >> well, first of all, i'd agree with the report that over time we are going to have to modernize the legislative framework and practice when it comes to dealing with communications data. it's obviously a politically quite contentious topic. i'm not sure that we'll make progress on it in the coming months in terms of legislation. there may be things short of legislation that we can do. but i do think that politicians, police chiefs, the intelligence services, we got a role in explaining what this is all about. because i think, while i wouldn't go back to what i said earlier, i don't think snowden had an enormous public impact. it raises questions about who has access to my data and why. but i'm absolutely convinced that proper rules for communications data is essential. i didn't think we got it across to people yet the basics of this. most of the serious crimes, child abductions, who called who and when and where was the telephone at the time, not the content of the call, but communications data is absolutely vital. and i think we need the police chiefs, the investigators and others and the politicians explaining what this is about. i love watching, as i probably should stop telling people, crime dramas on the television. there's highly a crime drama that a crime is solved without using the data of a mobile communications device. and that's not about the content. it's about -- and the problem we have to explain to people is as you move from a world of people having fixed telephones and mobile phones to skype and phones on the internet and all of that, if we don't modernize the practice and modernize the law, over time we will have the communications data to solve these horrible crimes on a shrinking proportion of the total use of devices. and that is a real problem for keeping people safe. now, i don't know if that was the clearest explanation i could give but we need to make this explanation really, really clear and get it out to people and build, perhaps the start of the next parliament, a cross-party case, a sensible legislation to deal with this issue. i think it is possible, but i think it's going to take a lot of work by politicians across parties to try and take that civil liberties concern seriously but get them in proportion so we can then make some progress. >> thank you, prime minister. i think we'd all agree with that. and i think it follows on very well from what -- perhaps this is something the n.s.c. can look at, how to get what you said over to the general public, the difference between data and content. >> well, the best attempt i've seen so far, i think one or two police chiefs wrote some articles in the newspapers and i thought when they explained just how much this involved in child abduction cases, in solving murders and solving serious crimes, you know, i absolutely see and my work with security services and how vital it is to prevent terrorist attacks, i -- you know, i feel passionate about this. i feel the first responsibility of my job is to help keep people safe. and the fact it's used so much in crime is a very straightforward thing that people can get a hold of. >> thank you. i want to ask you about something else. prime minister, we all understand the desirability of foreign investment and so on. but has the n.s.c. looked closely enough at the issue of foreign ownership of parts of our critical infrastructure? i'm thinking of energy, nuclear power and waste, water and so on. and are you confident that there isn't reason to be concerned about whether or not there should be some clear red lines drawn about foreign ownership? >> well, we do have a proper system in place for examining whether inward investments and things like infrastructure are in our national interests. but actually sir kim and i were discussing earlier there will be a proper n.s.c. consideration of this because we have slightly different procedures for some slightly different parts of our infrastructure. and i think it would be good to have a collective discussion when it comes to telecoms and electricity networks and gas networks and what have you that we have all the rules we need in place. so we will do that. i would -- and when we had a specific issue,, we properly responded to the i.s.c. report. i would not underplay that the fact that britain saying to the world that we welcome it with investment and we welcome investment into, you know, key parts of infrastructure. the fact that the chinese will be invested, i think is a good thing. it means we can free up more of our own capital to spend on roads and railways and other things. and it also makes an enormous -- it's a very good message for britain going around the world. we are not embarrassed but delighted that indian capital is rebuilding the british car industry. we're delighted that the chinese are going to own part of water, investing in heathrow. i think it's one of our calling cards that we are an open economy that encourages people to invest. so, yes, by all means, let's check if there were security issues we could act properly and appropriately and we will do, but don't lose the position as a great open economy. i was very struck by one of the large chinese investors, britain is better than all. i thought that was a good endorsement. >> thank you. >> prime minister, i think when you're saying you wish you could spend more time and effort on asia, some had a history of trade in this country. [inaudible] i just want to get your view. mr. gates made a comment the other day, former defense secretary of america, to ensure global reach in support of our long-term security interests and our part with a crucial relationship with the united states navy, we must guarantee that we have high-end capability with the necessary number and mix of ships? you started on the 31st of january, 2013, your words, your strong view was that the defense budget will require year-on-year growth beyond 2015. as a leading member of nato, no less than 2% of our g.d.p. for our defense budget, i hope you're able to confirm that this is still very, very much your view and intention and will be emphasized at the nato conference this september. >> i don't move away from the importance of our defense budget and what that should mean for the future at all. where i take issue slightly with former secretary gates is i think actually if you look at -- >> i don't move away from the importance of our defense budget and what that should mean for the future at all. where i take issue slightly with former secretary gates is i think actually if you look at the equipment program for our navy, it is absolutely a full spectrum equipment program. you have the two carriers under construction. you have the type 45 destroyers coming into action. you got the future frigate program that is there. you have the submarines. you have the trident submarines and the pledge to renew them and the -- in terms of the navy it has a very bright future and it is a full spectrum capability from, you know, the nuclear deterrent at one end to, you know, smaller vessels right at the other end. so i don't accept that we are, you know, shrinking the navy or it's not a full spectrum capability. it absolutely is. as what you say about asia, i completely agree. we've seen a big increase in our exports to china, for instance, but we're still only 1% of chinese exports. we can, you know, quite easily get to 2% which will be great for us without being a huge change. >> prime minister, there are some who would suggest having more -- to meet the very ambitions you have been talking about today will be more than useful. >> i have this debate with the navy all the time. because clearly what's been happening is that we are having fewer, more expensive ships, type 45's, you know, are pretty close to a billion pounds each. they are phenomenally expensive. they are the most modern, most effective one of our type 45s that's doing more at the moment. i think it's getting quite a lot of attention. there is obviously a discussion we should have, is there a role for other sorts of vessels we should be using as well and what's the tradeoffs between these multipurpose ships that can do everything from drug interdiction in the caribbean right through carrier escorts or complex warfare, is it right to do that or should you try to have more ships that are carrying out more different tasks? and i think it's a debate that will continue. up until now the answer is let's have the multirole ships that can do everything. >> let me switch a subject and that's the role of the n.s.c. and that's energy and energy policy. there are two aspects of it. you have the shorter term policy and the longer term policy. am i right in saying that the only real security strategy is the department of energy and climate change document which obviously leaves out foreign policy, planning and range of other issues and frankly looking 50 or 100 years ahead as to what we should be considering, is that something that almost at the top of the agenda in the years to come on long term? i'll come back to short term in a moment. >> clearly energy security is vital. we were talking earlier about how do you define security? clearly energy security, the ability to power your economy, to power your homes and businesses and that's the key aspect of security and it is something taken seriously by the national security council. we have discussed it and taken papers on it. i would argue that we have a good strategy there. we are renewing that point and we will follow next. we set out a very clear strategy so everyone knows what the rules and the costs are for investing in renewables. and we're moving ahead, not just with new gas plants as appropriate but also with onshore shale gas which i think could be a major industry for britain in the future. so i think we got a long-term plan. and we got to make sure that every piece of that is put in place. >> and i think our position does put us -- being reliant on so much. >> i think if you look at our energy penetration of imports compared with other countries, because of the north sea, we had a relatively good record. we got the interconnector with france. a potential interconnector with norway. if we make the most of shale gas, then as north sea gas runs down we'll have a new national resource. so when i look at our position in europe and look at, you know, how we linet we are on imports, i'm -- i think we're relatively secure position. we must keep up. that's why the relationship with gasa and others in terms of imported gas, the relationship with norway is fantastically important. making sure we get a decent contribution for renewables. >> could i bring up the other thing that is a really serious problem? we believe our country is facing potentially a very serious crisis of supply and competitiveness at this very moment in time we speak. and are you prepared to set aside the targets in the 2008 climate change act in order to get through this period? if you're unable to act unilaterally, will you seek consensus with the major countries on behalf of the commitments? prime minister, what i ask with that is, do you accept now in retrospect these targets, those set by the former government but were endorsed by you, were a huge mistake that threatens the severely damaged and indeed our already damaging europe competitive and growth prospect in years to come? >> prime minister, this view that he expressed may not be shared by -- >> of course. two questions in there. one is the climate change act framework, can that work for us in the long term? my answer is yes, it can. we set these budgets. we have to make sure they're achievable and deliverable. i supported the climate change act and i think we can make it work. the second part i think about the european targets which i think we are capable of meeting, i think you go back over the history and argue whether it was right to have as many specific targets, you might come to a different answer. europe is reviewing -- the e.u. is reviewing this at the moment about whether the specific targets are correct. but look, the question i ask and i got the energy industries, the national grid and everybody else around the table, i checked that our situation was robust, is are we content with the rules we have in place and everything we have in place that we are energy secure in terms of our short, medium and long-term future or are there any changes we need to make about decommissioning coal plants, bringing on gas more quickly or anything else and the answer i got was that the rules and regulations and capacity mechanisms are in place so we have the energy security that we need. so the question you put is very important. but i don't think either the climate change act or our own situation is one that we ought to be concerned with but one that i think we need to make major change. >> [inaudible] this is just not my view. it's head of the international energy agency based in paris and in london here today, we were discussing only the subject of deep, deep critical concern about europe's competitiveness. >> the european union -- they'll debate at the march council. they'll think very carefully about international competitiveness and prices. the united states has 10,000 shale gas wells. in europe we got about 100. and so i think we do need to think about the competitiveness picture. i completely agree with that. i don't think throwing out the window the concern about carbon emission reduction. what is the market in europe, that would be a very good thing. make sure we make use of shale gas. we are committed to cheap green energy and keep driving down the price of these new technologies. if we do all those things we can be green and competitive. >> we are almost out of time. i just want to take you back for a moment. to something you said about the maritime -- about the navy. i am reminded about what was said recently, unless we change our current course, not enough people. and he said that they were close to the critical mass. and i applaud what you said about the navy. >> well, i think -- to be fair, what was said, if spending reductions went further, there would be a danger of what was called hollowing out. if we were in danger of that happening with what we have. the point i would make is that in the sdsr we made decisions with the chiefs of the defense staff around the table that we're about the future capabilities of the u.k. and a very strong argument was made, which i completely agree with, that we need to have a navy that is full spectrum, that's got everything from those submarines, the type 45's, to the future frigates and everything else. and that was a real priority. we've taken this gap in capability, which we'll refresh with the new carriers, and that's incredibly important. i don't see -- obviously want to do everything we can on value for money, on efficiency. i think if we do that i don't see any reason why we won't be able to properly run and crew these excellent assets. and also i think it's encouraging people to join the navy. the opportunities when you got this absolutely world first-class equipment that's running out of our ship-yards at the moment, it is terrific to encourage people to join up. >> can i applaud what you just said about the gap being replaced by new carriers? [laughter] >> you have about two minutes. >> [inaudible] in a public meeting, if the secretaries get their way and break scotland up from the kingdom, what are the national security implications of that? i think you stated publicly some of those implications but i wonder if you could elaborate a little bit more. >> in a nutshell, we are more secure together as well as more prosperous and all the rest of it. scotland makes an enormous contribution to the u.k.'s defense. i will be making a speech soon which is it's very important everyone in the rest of the united kingdom emphasizes how much we benefit of scotland staying in the united kingdom and that's something i feel passionate about. >> we're grateful, prime minister. and i think we got through most of the things we wanted to get through. i think you would have gathered that we are very anxious about the national security strategy, that the next one will be better. one point we have made repeatedly is how much we would like to see it drawn outside experts and other views. without any disrespect to the people we have. a couple of times it's been suggested that the government might consult this committee and we very much hope that it will and we will do our best to be cooperative and helpful. >> thank you. in the end, the government has got to own this document. so it's got to reflect our collective view. but the more input and also identifying gaps and weaknesses that your committee does frankly the better. >> very kind of you. thank you very much indeed. order, order. the meeting is now adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> tomorrow treasury secretary jack lew will get the bipartisan policy center in d.c. recently sent a letter to lawmakers that the government would likely reach into borrowing limit by the end of february unless there is congressional action. we will have that on monday and 90 and eastern on c-span 2. you can share your thoughts on twitter by using the #cspanchat. and the center for national interest is hosting the u.s.- russia relations event. it will also be on c-span 2. c-span, we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences, and offering complete devil coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service for private industry. we are created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. a look at some of the issues young voters are more interested in. from this morning "washington journal" this is 30 minutes. we continue with matthew segal. we looked at the young people and their take on the state of the union address. for those of you 18-29, give us a call on the number on your screen. for all others, give us a call on the other number understanding. we will talk about the state of the union address. guest: let's do it. tuned inmillion people to the state of the union. over 100 million will tune into the super bowl. what does that say about civic engagement in our country when you three times as many people watching a football game? for thethat is endemic larger disenchantment we have seen with congress not being able to produce any results. the president trying to govern with a pen and a phone, which is to a certain degree unrealistic. i think what the speech was as optimistic as possible, there the some good steps in right direction, particularly around the minimum wage. i do not think it had the grand ambition or really honesty, the great to realize any true action. to me and to many young people, while it was a motivating speech, i don't inc. there is a lot of confidence it will result in anything tangible. host: this is one of the headlines. this is from the desert news out west. it does not just the jobs. millennial's what a kinder, smarter, cleaner society. does that summarize? guest: i would say that's true. i would say absolutely they want cleaner, kinder. if you look at the statistics around young people who believe in climate change and want action on it. they want kinder in that income inequality is a huge problem. and young people are some of the most likely to make minimum wage. in fact, there is just a piece in the atlantic that talks about how the average 27-year-old in america is more likely to earn $15,000 per year as a 27-year-old than $40,000 a year. so the wages are awful. and the student loan debt and the underemployment and the personal debt are severe. and so when you have that, clearly also in juxtaposition to the fact that there are wealthy people who have done so well, i think i read something that said about 85 of the wealthiest people on earth own more than 50% of all bottom people in the world. so that's 2 billion people who have cumulative wealth akin to 5 people. so in terms of a kinder society to answer your question, i think a kinder society would look at how we're going to make sure that people have a better opportunity of achieving wealth. host: and that headline is based on a study by deloite consulting which surveyed 8,000 people young people born in the late 1980s to the early 2020s from 2 countries and looking at what the millenials are focusing on. asked what the top issues facing society. only one of the top three was economic. giving global surprising on the economic conditions. it's also may not surprise people that climate change was at 32% and wealth inequality also at 32%. topping the list. >> not surprised. not surprised at all. host: good morning. independent -- how old are you? guest: i'm 30. i was calling actually to ask about the last guys who were on talking about the constitutional guys. and i also believe that ties in to what we're talking about right now the voting rights. which is we don't actually get a fair say at what's being voted on. we have people who go to college, literally they can't get a job. it seems like you can only go to a few colleges such as princeton, such as yale. and like your man was just speaking about right there, you have one portion of the country making massive amounts of wealth and you have everyone else whose going to school and trying to do this and that and they can't even acquire 2% of the wealth. what about the transfer students from china who are coming in and more than 100,000 transfer students here in the u.s. and their economy is doing nothing but going up and we can't even transfer more than 2,000 kids there to go to school. and our economy and our wealth is just dropping. i think voters need to really sit down and ask themselves what is clean energy? i'm sure it's all the energy sources. i'm pretty sure that we talk about military benefits and our veterans and this and that. well, if anybody serves in the military, if you've gone to work you don't want somebody taking your benefits, taking your money or anything from you that you believe that you earned. host: thank you for the call. guest: i think so many of his points are spot on. but they really boil down to one key issue which is democracy reform. democracy reform will solve so many of the other issues you just outlined because it will make the large poddy of representatives, senators we have more accountable to us, the people. and the reason for that is right now our democracy is a sham of what it should be. it's broken. the system of campaign finance we have is a joke. there's so much money that's filtered into the political process. and clearly politicians are very accountable to that money and not accountable to the broad majority of their constituents. i think the fact that voting rights is something you raised is right spot on in the sense that young people in certain communities are having a more difficult time expressing their voice given restrictions we've made that have made voting more difficult unfortunately. and when you also look at gerrymandering in districts and the way that districts are drawn, the conclusions of elections are quite predictable. so politicians don't really have to govern to the majority of people. they have to govern to what the likely bases in their districts are where the money is. and for the rest of the time they can often manipulate voting laws to govern outcomes in their favor or to dictate outcomes in their favor. so democracy reform is critical as a means to ensure that more people can actually vote and express their will. and then i think you will see some of these issues like the minimum wage become a no brainer. you'll see college affordable t and really lowering the cost of college become a no brainer. you'll see energy reform become a no brainer. because as you just pointed out in the survey, millenials have positions on most of these issues. it's not a 50/50 divided country on climate change. it's not a 50/50 divided country on wealth inequality. so why are these outcomes not happening? it's because the democracy we live in is not accountable to us. host: our conversation with the cofounder and president of an organization called our time. you can get more information on line at our time.org. he's also a contributor to the huffington post. and andrew, who is 20 years old joining us. caller: thanks for having me on. i just wanted to say i was watching the state of the union address and i was the only one in my house. i go to college. and i was the only one in my house to watch it and that amazed the lack of politicalen volvement with my generation. i'
>> rose: additional funding provided by kohl qo >> and by bloomberg. a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: our focus tonight is on war in the middle east, the conflict between israel and hamas in gaza continues after a brief humanitarian truce unraveled on saturday. the death toll on the palestinian side has risen to over 1,000. over 50 israeli soldiers have lost their lives. on sunday president obama called israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu to urge an immediate, unconditional humanitarian cease-fire while the two sides pursued a comprehensive deal. early monday morning the united nations security council echoed the president's call. peace remains elusive. israel is surprised by the strength of hamas's rocket arsenal and the reach of its tunnel network, wants to neutralize both threats. hamas says it will not cease combat operations until the siege of gaz az is lifted and border crossings are open. peace negotiations are complicated because neither the united states norris real deal directly with hamas. this weekend a traveled to the capitol of qatar where khaled mashal the political leader of hamas lives in exile. i sat down for an hour long conversation with him on saturday. >> khaled mashal, thank you very much for allowing us to come to your home for a conversation about an especially this weekend. secretary kerry had asked for a week cease-fire so that the parties could negotiate. why didn't that happen? >> yes, he did observe the efforts and he came to the capitol of the region. and we do appreciate his efforts. we do appreciate the efforts that they seek to stop the bloodletting and to stop the carnage and we through the qatari foreign minister and turkish foreign minister will receive the ideas of kerry and the proposal that he did propose and we did-- seriously within our circuit of leadership inside and outside palestine to stop the israeli aggression and also to lift the siege and to stop the aggression and meet the demands of the palestinian people. however the israeli cabinet refused the paper of kerry. and they are to be held responsible. israel actually failed this paper and it has failed, the nine month negotiations that he actually-- between the israeli and palestinians. >> rose: as soon as you say that many people listening to you say the israeli aggression would not have happened if rockets from gaza had not rained down on israel. >> who did start this episode. you do understand that the events took place in the west bank. some teenagers were unaccounted for in the west bank and netanyahu actually didn't reign in the settlers. and they practiced a heinous crime. they burned alive a teenager. and then he moved to gaza, netanyahu, he started the aggression on gaza. and the rockets are actually a response for this aggression. >> rose: when you look at those israeli teenagers who were murdered, did hamas have anything to do with it? >> from the start i did declare and announce that we did not know who carried out such operation. up to this moment we don't foe who were the perpetrators. however netanyahu jumped to conclusion and accused hamas in order to justify his aggression on the west bank and on gaza. these settlers, actually, are looking at this on the west bank and these settlers are illegal. and its presence of the settlers is illegal. on the contrary, actually, the world did not take heed of the-- he was burned alive. >> rose: and prime minister netanyahu called his parents with a great apology and grief for the death of that young man. but you have not called the parents of the israeli teenagers who were killed. in fact, you said i cannot condemn the killing of settlers. >> there are two distinctions here. the first difference is as follows. those who burned him alive were settlers. and they were known israeli authority know them. however when it comes to the teenagers, nobody knew who killed them. the other distinction is as follows. mohammed lives in his country, in jerusalem. the settler does live on an illegal land. they are armed. they are-- the settle ares carry weapons and they kill the palestinians. and they run over women and children. they distort the lands and agriculture and the settlements are illegal and the settlers are illegal as well. their presence is illegal. >> rose: so you do you think the killing will begin anew after the cease-fire? >> there is no-- leader who respects himself condone the killing of his own people. those who were responsible for killing our people, 900 martin-- martyrs an 5 to 6,000 casualties, a lot of homes were actually taken into rubble. there are plenty of atrocities. netanyahu is responsible person. the war in gaza sends two messages, mr. charles, to the world. the first message, it is high time to lift the siege on gaza. gaza wants to live,. >> rose: that is exactly what secretary kerry has asked to be negotiated after the cease-fire, to have a week of cease-fire. so you could do that. but you're asking that to be done as a precondition to the negotiations. >> this is not a prerequisite. life is not the prerequisite. life is the right for our people in palestine, since 2006 when the world refused the outcome of the elections, our people actually lived under the siege of eight years. this is a collective punishment. we need to lift the siege. we have to have a vote. we have to have an airport this is the first message. the second message in all to stop the bloodletting, we need to look at the underlying causes. we need to look at the occupation. we need to stop the occupation. netanyahu didn't take heed of our rights. and mr. kerry months ago tried to find a window through the negotiations in order to meet our target, to live without the incubation, to reap our states. netanyahu has killed our hope, killed our dream. and he killed the american initiative. >> rose: but the egyptians had a cease-fire proposal which the israelis accepted and you didn't, yes? >> yes, we did not agree for two reasons. the first reason because this initiative does not lift the siege. it starts with the cease-fire. and then the subject up to negotiating that we don't know the outcome with. we know the approximation as follows. the other thing is as follows. the egyptians did not console, did not open a dialogue with the palestinian factions in gaza. however in the past, we managed with the egyptians a number of maneuvers. we have actually reached a truce. -- was released and so on and so forth but now the method was wrong. that why it has failed. >> rose: but here is what many people believe, that regard its before the israeli rocket came, there were hamas rockets. >> this is the narrative, israeli narrative. this is unaccount, israeli account. this incorrect, as i said to you, this started in the west bank. netanyahu actually was pressurized by-- especially and disgruntlement in the street of the israeli towns. and that's why they wanted-- he wanted to revenge. he started the-- this episode and we retall grated. we do not like to launch rockets. we do not want to target people. excuse me, i would like to give an example. if you look at the martyrs, the palestinians martyrs, most of them are civilians. however on the other side they are militants. they are combatants. this is eeh5atic of the morality of the resistance, and the immorality of the israeli aggression. >> rose: it is with respect not just israelis saying this. this is former president bill clinton, quote, hamas was perfectly well aware of what would happen if they started raining rockets on israel am they fired a thousand of them and they have a strategy designed to force israel to kill their own civilians so the rest of the world will condemn them. that's president clinton, not an israeli. a man who worked hard to create peace between palestinians and israelis. >> with all due respect to mr. clinton, unfortunately, the world doesn't want to blame the israelis because the rest of the world, indeed, know that the blame is on the side of the israelis. when it comes to the-- this didn't take place on the side of the palestinians. secondly, if you could imagine the following scenario. when the siege is lifted on gaza, when the occupation on the west bank, jerusalem and gaza is stopped and we reach a state, than wouldn't we have a window to stop the bloodletting and to have security for the israel why do you call for security for israel and why don't you call for lifting the siege and stopping the occupation of the palestinians. why don't you give the right to live for the palestinians as the other nations-- this is actually the last occupation in the world. >> rose: my understanding is that is exactly what secretary kerry is preparing and trying to do, to engage israel and hamas throug through-- through qatar and turkey to be able to deal to the issues of the border crossing, to deal to the issue of fishing rights, to deal to the issue of a port, to deal to the issue of the condition of the people in gaza. but you have to do that through negotiations. and that's what secretary is trying to do. but missiles are flying back and forth but gunned by hamas. >> mr. charlie, the method of the americans is actually incorrect. they know where are the rights of the palestinians. they know the errors of the israelis. they actually present us an umbrella for negotiations to the israelis and the palestinians, whether it is to do with the negotiations here and there. and they leave the palestinians subject to blackmailing. they do not compel israel, mahmoud anas had nine months of for examples and the outcome was zero. if we negotiate with israelies to lift the siege and stop the occupation, we then will be delving into a marathon of negotiations. the american administration will only resort to negotiations. they know crystal clear our rights and as the superpower they can compel the israelis. and i do actually call upon the administration through your-- not only to take heed of the symptoms, they need to diagnose the disease and they need to have our state, indeed, emerge on the borders of 1967. >> rose: '67, '67, you're not talking about 48y, you're talking about 67 borders. >> this is the problem. this is the problem that all the factions, all the palestinians factions have agreed upon, yes. >> rose: the problem is -- >> the problem, the problem is the siege and the occupation. the occupation and the siege are the problem. we have to stop the occupation. we have to stop the siege and then we can have security. >> rose: two questions, one, president obama said and others have said no nation can expect not to respond when rockets are being rained down on top of them. and the argument is it would not have happened if you had not sent those rockets in the beginning. >> let me move this beyond that. what is your short-term goals. and your long-term goals. >> well, first of all, will i go back to the account. those who started shooting is not gaza. they are not-- it's not gaza. the rockets were as a defense against the aggression. those who started the aggression is netanyahu and the israeli army. it's mr. booma. is surprised of such action. the question is as follows. do you expect any one not to respond if he is attacked in his own homeland. so gaza responded as well. so why obama and the leaders of the free world w why don't they surprise vis-a-vis the occupation of our land for several decades without having a window of hope. what what if it's possible for us to live time and time again under occupation, human beings, or to defend themselves. if are you pressurized, if you are nailed, we are served, if we are under blockade and siege we have to defend ourselve when we are subject in the west bank. in jerusalem hundreds of settlements, 600,000 settlers in there. and if netanyahu stops every single effort to reach a cease so the rest of the world knows to expect it an explosion in the west bank and gaza, what do i want. hamas needs a once peace, again. we want peace. but we want peace without occupation, without settlements, without ju-- without siege, we want to live on par we have ree single nation in the world. we need to live in palestine. >> rose: let me take you back to the time that the israelis withdrew. they took their settlers out. they took their military out. they said here is gaza. make it flourish. we're giving it back to you. we're taking the settlers out. we're taking the soldiers out. even american businessman gave some money here. did you miss an opportunity to take advantage of that? >> because sooner than later you began using that as a military place to rain rockets. >> yes, israel withdrew from gada. and expelled the settlers. however it started with aggression. you can actually ask the egyptians who were the sponsors of a number of initiatives who did violate the initiative. israel time and time again violates this and they don't need the palestinians to respond. yes, israel withdrew from gaza but they pulled the strategs of the crossings, the sea and the land and the air. so they are an occupation-- albeit they withdrew from gaza. so gaz is is not away from the aggression of israel. if gaza live was occupation, without aggression, without blockade, without closing of the crossings, without starvation, then we-- then this will be fine. and this applies actually to the west bank as well. because gaza and the west bank are two parts of the palestinian-- and we are one nation. we want to live without occupation in the west bank and in gaza. >> rose: you want to live in coexistence with israel? >> i do not coexist with occupation, with settlements. >> rose: so israel withdrews-- withdraws from gaza from the west bank, '67 borders. is that the beginning of a two state solution that will bring finally -- >> israel up to this moment did not give us any indication, any serious indication that they will withdraw from the west bank. if you look at the leaders' statements or otherwise. when israel practically commits itself to withdraw from gaza completely and the west bank without any settlement and if we have-- as our capitol and the return of the refugees is there, then we will reach peace. israel is killing-- . >> rose: if you have that will you pledge to the security of israel? will you pledge not to eradicate israel? >> do you think that palestinian who suffers from starvation and settlement can eradicate israel. this is a propaganda, a we giling misleading op ganda. we need to live in peace. >> rose: i done think you can eradicate it, i don't think you can. but i think that there needs to be a justice for palestinian, a territory for palestinian and two states. people are worried that the idea of a two state solution is slipping away. >> yes. the world is saying that the two state solution is slipping away, indeed. those who are caught. but who did actually lose, those who killed are the leaders of israel since the '70s and '80s. and then at the madrid conference and also accord. you can go back to all the american administrations and the leaders. a number of them actually tried. they went through-- i actually read the memoirs o of-- carter and they knew what was going on. those who killed the political path is israel. i can say that on air. the palestinian people in a nutshell want to live without occupation. want to live free in an independent state. we have two paths. the first one which is the better one is the peaceful one for the rest of the world to pressurize israel in order to compel it to withdraw. we say to the world thank you, we will live peacefully. and if this path failed t has failed actually, then we have to resist. we have to defend ourselves as all the nations did. >> rose: so rather than saying we can't eradicate israel y don't you say we don't want to eradicate israel. we want to live side-by-side having a full state for us, and for our people. why can't you say that? >> what does it mean when hamas agrees with fatah and all the factions in the unity government and says that our national goal, that we is joined forces to reach is to have a state on the borders of '67, with jerusalem as the capitol and the return of-- that means everything palestinian actually agreed on this. who throw-- in the world t is israel. israel actually negotiated with arafat and killed the-- in him. israel is negotiating with abbas and is failing him. israel is killing can the peace process. nobody can blame the palestinians. the arabs had the initiative in 2002 in beirut. 12 years later what did israel dop. the american administration what did it do, and the palestinians actually provided all the positive indication in order to reach a genuine peace. but those who killed it is israel. she says that she wants the peace but it wants security. and it wants the land only. how can it have the land and security and not reach the peace. >> rose: what you reflect is what martin indyk without worked with secretary kerry said s the problem leer in the end is palestinians don't trust the israelis. and the israelis don't trust the palestinians. in the end that's the problem. how do you get beyond that? how do you create trust? >> mr. charles, do you think that the key for the solution is trust? we are actually enemies. they are the occupiers. we are enemies. the solution doesn't start with trust. as i said, the solution starts with the international community's volumician to say to the israeli occupation stop. enough is enough. they ought to compel israel to withdraw. so how could i trust my enemy? and we had a number of negotiations, and the negotiations were failing. >> rose: do you believe israel acts at the behest of the united states? >> the capacity of the american administration to pressurize israel has nothing to do with israel listening to the-- to america. but it emanates from the fact that it is a superpower, ie america. it is responsible for that. why did america come to iraq and why did it expel saddam hussein from kuwait in 1991. was iraq subservient to america, no. any nation that supersedes the red lines, then the superpower ought to compel the other to meet their international standard. eisenhower in the '50s actually pressurized the israelis after the war of '56 to move away from sinai. the administration, they can do that. but now they don't want to exercise the moral responsibility, and they know the shortcoming has to do with israel. >> rose: and begun and sad at were able to form-- sadat were able to form an agreement at camp david. the israelis gave back territory and the-- signed a peace agreement. >> yes this is good, begun withdrew, for sharon, ohl mert, they withdrew. why israel actually had an overture for the syria, and they had also an agreement with the egyptians, why israel is insisting on keeping the west bank and jerusalem. >> rose: let me ask you this. do you believe that you can solve this by violence? >> in our culture as arabs and muslims, we have a prophet saying, the prophet said the prophet had two choices. and he followed the easiest choice. that means we ought to follow the easiest path, the better path. as a palestinian i want to be liberallized. i want a state. i want to live without occupation because we don't like to kill our sons and daughters. but if we don't have the peace, then the resistance is legitimate. so the world has two choices. they need to help us reach a state or we will expel the occupation from our land. >> rose: so unless the world will take the israelis out of the west bank, and gaza, you will expel them militarily. that's your objective. you believe you can do that? >> i do believe this as i see you now, it is a conviction. why? >> because time and time in the history of nations says that people have the upper hand over the occupation. albeit there are disproportionate standards. yes, they have the upper hand but every single occupation ends and the people become victorious. i have the will. i can die because of israel. however, those looters who occupy our land, they love the life. i cannot live under the occupation. the occupation is the worst thing that you can ever imagine. so every single palestinian can die for the next generation to live in peace and freedom. >> rose: let me talk about hamas and gaza. it is said that hamas and its governance was in a bad way. it could not even pay its civil servants. and therefore they are open to a unity agreement with the palestinian authority. and mr. abbas. is that unity working today? >> what roll does mr. abbas play in all of this? >> hamas. >> first and foremost hamas used to suffer, however its management of gaza was successful indeed. we surmounted every single challenge. i actually challenge any government to manage 1.8 million people in our circumstances. we were successful. but indeed, yes in the last few months, we fell short of paying the civil servants, indeed. and this the responsibility of the international community. but this didn't compel us or propel us of the unity. the unity was to do with our right. all we didn't want to pull the strings of governance. we are wanted for unit government. israel prevented it from sending the transaction, sending the money for the gazans so the gazans said enough is enough. you wants to have a blockade on us, the crossing blocks, our casualties or our ill people cannot travel. we cannot go to universities, it is an open air jail, 50,000-- 50,000 civil servants along with families that amount to quarter of a million people were deprived from the money had. that is why gaza has turned into a time ticking bomb that plu in -- blew in the face of israel why dow kill us for election calculations. netanyahu, agressed and blocks. crossing. why we don't have an airport, how could you ask us why do you-- why are you surprised because of our resistance. reresist and we not transgress. when it comes to mr. mahmoud abbas. he is our partner. he is the palestinian president, he is our partner in the reconciliation. nd you accept his leadership to negotiate with the israelis through secretary kerry an can speak for hamas and hamas accepts his it principleses an his values and his negotiating stance. >> mr. mahmoud abbas is the palestinian president. he is our boss, authority and when it comes it to negotiations there are no negotiations any more. actually netanyahu tamp eled -- trampled on telephone. and he turned away every single choice, american choice, actually, american backing, so this is an il use. hamas-- illusion, hamas has talked about the management of the palestinian decision. mr. abbas nine months ago went unilaterally. he didn't consult us. he didn't consult the other palestinian facs, however we as palestinians are ready to participate in rich rooing the political decision. but it has to be institutionalized and it has to be-- linked to our people t the volition of our people whether it was mahmoud abbas or others. but the problem-- please, allow me pinning the hopes on negotiations is incorrect. how you could negotiate a person who actually denies your prize. netanyahu thinks that the west bank is an israeli land. so how coy negotiate him. look at me. negotiations are successful when there are prerequisites, ma muir-- mature ple recognize businessities. our negotiations with israel is failing because israel has the upper hand and it doesn't take heed of what we say. >> some say the issue for israel is they have security, they insist they must have idf forces, israeli defense forces on the jordan river. they suggest, you know, that they have to be restrictions on the sovereignty of a palestinian state. all of that is unacceptable. to you and to mr. abbas and to anybody who represents the palestinian viewpoint. >> why-- dow understand the security issues, the israeli security issues and on the other side does not take heed of the palestinian security issues. secondly, when it comes to the solution in order to have the palestinian state, why the state asked not to be independent, why ought to be demilitarized. why is it to be not sovereign. this is a live and you cannot transgress me and as a palestinian have the right to live in a sovereign country, to have a militarized state on par with britain, on par with america. who accepts a state without arms. it will be subject to the aggression of others. i cannot accept any tutelage of any other entity. but if you say come, you are a palestinian and we can give you a piece here and there and a piece male fashion, no. you know the palestinian people are very cultivated and the palestinian people did struggle and they are civilized. and they have plenty of brains. but now we are deprived from freedom, deprived from independence. my message to mr. obama, to the world, to america which talked about democracy time and time again, we need to apply their standard on palestine in order not to have a double standard. >> rose: let me ask you about this. it is also said that hamas was out of sight and almost out of mind before this most recent explosion of violence which puts us in this conflict today you had seen, you left damascus, syria is no long are supporting you. it is said the apply iran that you had met with the supreme leader and was not supporting you. egypt was clearly not supporting you the way general morsi was. general sisi has a different attitude. he closed the border. that you are alone, almost, except for qatar. is that a fair observation of where hamas is today? >> they try, they want to read us as you explained. actually i will leave it to you. you can think that we are on a difficult position. but in this conflict, we did fight its occupants. the world was surprised of our resistance against one of the most powerful army, the israeli army. this sends a message and says that hamas's power has nothing to do with the regional circumstances or the-- circumstances. it emanates from its sticking to its people in support of the palestinian people because it represents the palestinian people's needs and aspirations. we reflect the aspirations. the palestinians long for freedom, long for independence. they think that hamas is doing well. >> do you believe -- >> the power, the genuine power of hamas power, if this country supports me or not, yes, this will affect me from time to time but it is a sideline kind of impact. but our power is the justice of our cause. >> so you believe and you are saying to me that the people in gaza who are suffering the most in this, understand and support everything that hamas is doing, notwithstanding the terrible consequences for civilian and for children. >> they support you, they believe, they're willing to endure this war because they think that what? >> it might sound contradicting. the image might be contradictory but it is actually the truth, the voices of all the palestinians in gaza. they say we are suffering, indeed, because of the crimes of israel, the carnage and also the homes that were reduced to rubble am but they say we don't want to emerge from this war without breaking the siege works lifting the siege and actually we were dying slowly. now we are dying instantly because of the f-16 and all the technology, the american technology. the palestinian people is had enough. they do not make distinctions to be a slow or instant death. they say yes, we are suffering. they say we are suffering but we want resistance. we want full resistance on reaching, lifting the siege. >> rose: there is also this issue that comes up between the discussion, and i want to go to the negotiations now. representatives, the foreign minister of turkey, the foreign minister of qatar is meeting with its secretary of state of the united states in paris. tell us what is going on. what is the secretary of state acting through qatar and turkey of you. what does he want from you? >> yes, the it is to do with the-- from different countries. they want-- about their reconstruction of gaza and providing assistance. this is good and we do appreciate these efforts. we thank every single country that provides assistance to our people. however, this is not enough only. because the coast, the-- it is not only humanitarian t is national, it is political. the other thing is that to lift the siege as i said and to finish the occupation. as for mr. obama-- the ministers were here. we met them and they want to paris. and part of their talk with mr. kerry and the european leaders in addition to recognize construction and providing assistance is to seek a way whereby we can reach an agreement to stop this war and secure lifting the siege. and we said to them, any agreement that stops the aggression and lifts the siege and meets the demands of the palestinians, we will cooperate with it. we cooperate with mediators. even the mission of kerry. we cooperated. we want it to be successful. however the israeli cabinet refused it. >> so if the siege is endnd and by that you mean the borders are open, the port is open, fishing rights, what else? >> these are the fundamental issues in gaza. and the west bank, as well since the 12th of june, israel rounded up hundreds and some of them actually were those people who were released. so that means that israel has violated the agreement of 12. if these demands were met and the gazans felt that the siege is lifted be sure the war is stopped. >> rose: there will be no more rocketses and no morris rheal rockets going from. >> can the qataries and turkey authorize that deal for you, are they authorized to do that. they can make that deal. >> yes, yes, we have authorized them and we ask them to observe every single effort to leave-- in order to-- actually we welcome the mediation with the america and the egyptians as well. we do not have veto on any effort of any single state or nation. our condition ask to meet the demands of our people, lift the siege to stop the occupation and the rest of the demands. >> some people raise this question, do you have to get approval from the military wing of hamas who are fighting now in gaza? do you have to have their approval before you can make a commitment? we are not two heads or two parts. we are one single movement 9 decision is too deal with the political leaders. when the polit call leaders commit to something then the military wing will commit itself. >> are you the political leadser, so if you make a decision, the military will follow. >> yes, definitely, definitely, yes, definitely, we are an institution. we are a respected institution. the leaders when they make a decision, then every single person within the movement, whether he or she or militants or civilians, they will follow. so the leaders do not take any steps unless it meets the demands of all palestinian people. >> some also ask why are you here and not in gaza, that if, in fact, you are the voice of hamas, you should be in hamas, in gaza with the people of gasa, that's the place for you there is the very reason of the question, logical question you can ask not only to you ask ask 6 million people why they are not at the west bank, why they are not in gaza. because israel has expelled the palestinians in 1948 and in 1967. since 1967 i was expelled actually i'm from ramallah, from west bank, i was expelled and millions were compelled to live outside their own country. and they actually are compelling another to live under its occupation it is natural for me to be there but the occupation doesn't allow me to do so you have hundreds of thousands of palestinians in america and they long to go back to palestine although-- all be they are american citizens. palestinians long for their home country, that's why we insiess on the return of the refugees, for me and others to return. >> so are you saying the only reason you are not there is because you can't get there. >> yes, definitely. my natural existence is there but here i'm compelled to be. i used to live in jordan, in kuwait. when i used to be a student and then i moved to syria, now if qatar. palestinians follow a nomadic kind of journey it is actually a daunting journey. that is why it is high time for the occupation to stop and the settlements to be stopped and for the people of palestine to be empowered to have their own state and for the refugees in the camps to come back to their own land. >> how do yoyou think this will end? >> every single occupation ought to fail and every single occupation ought to stop and every single settlement ought to perish. yes, it is difficult, we'll pay a price, mandela played-- paid plenty but he was victorious at the enof the day, ultimately. the palestinian people will be independent. that's why i say so every single soul, i say to the american. >> he was an-- in coexistence, he recognized and reconciled with the people that he was in competition with and without put him in jail. yes, due he didn't live with the occupants, because the system was different. it was a democratic system later on. all of the south africans lived within democracy. but israel wants to be occupiersnd others ought to live in its shadow this sun reasonable. those genuine people who are the landowners, we are the owners of this land. and we ought to live free on our land and not under any other tutelage. >> dow believe that the israelis want to be occupiers, that they do not want to and will not willingly give up the west bank? >> you'll have to take it back. >> these are their statements. these are the statements of all the leaders of israel even when they negotiate in the past and abbas what do they say. they primesed they say we want the jordan valley or they procrastinate. we want in settlement to be here and there and israel in the west bank what does it do? today the west bank resembl resembles-- israel thinks that the best bank-- west bank spart and par sell of israel that is why they refuse any solution. >> history also shows that israel withdrew from southern lebanon, history shows that they withdrew from gaza. and there's no reason to believe they will not withdraw from the west bank yes, this is true but we ought to draw lessons. when did they withdraw. they withdrew under the military pressure from south lebanon. an sharon withdrew from gaza under pressure after the second intefada, second uprising. and then after the 1973 war they withdrew from sinai, israel believes in the language of power, when they are compelled it to do so, they do withdrew. i have two models here. israel actually withdrew. they followed in 1956 after american administration compelled it and in lebanon they did so because of the military pres sewer as well. >> so the killing will continue in gaza. >> we hope that it will not continue one single moment. they kill every day 120 civilians. if we kill them we kill militants. who enter gaza we do not wish for the killings to continue. we wish for our people to live without occupation and for the siege to be lifted this is a humanitarian right for the people of the world ought to believe in this. >> rose: dow hope israel survives as a state? i don't want to have my own con jeckure. i reessential the resistance but the cia and kissinger, for example an other pundits say they are aware that israel is a fragile state. it resorts to occupation and aggression. it services the west, they are looted an that's why they are-- at the core and israeli leaders know that they are occupies that is why they have anxiety they suffer from anxiety and i think that the occupation has no future and the western politics ought to be reformed i do understand, i do know that are you a superpower are you a civilized people and we don't have any problem with the united states or the american people. we have a problem with the foreign policy and the bias vis-a-vis israel. arabs and muslims want to live with all the people. they want to coexist with others to have mutual interests with others but we do not want for the west to support israel. >> let me just ask you this because of who you are. there is a war going on in iraq what do you make of isis and what they are trying to do in iraq. >> who had paved the way for such sectarianism to flare up in iraq, i think is the american occupation of iraq in 2003. they destroyed the iraqi government. they did not topple saddam hussein but they destroyed the iraqi army. the iraqi security, the institution. so i hope that in our hand in afghanistan n iraq and syria, i hope a peace will be reached and i hope to pull their own string was any intervention from the rest of the world. i hope the christians and muslims here, sunnies can coexist with each other. unfortunately israel and the american foreign policy lead to these contra-- contradictions and they might be happy because this will tear into the arab body. >> dow believe that isis will be able to create a chall i fat. >> this is a different chubt. and you know that most muslims, this doesn't appeal to them but as i said when it comes to players, you can see such ideas. we in hamas believe in the moderation of islam. we are not fanatics. we are not fundamentalists. we do not actually fight the jews because they are jews per se. we do not fight any other races. we fight the occupiers. on the contrary, we actually respect the religious people. we ask for tolerance for coexistence between the buddhist, the jews, the christians and the muslims. as you know god created us as nations, we are different. and its koran says that in order for the nations to live together and coexist without any blockade. >> i think i just heard you say and we will close on this, you believe in the coexistence in people and therefore you believe in the coexistence of palestinians and israelis in the middle east. >> i can't coexist with occupation. but without occupation you can coexist. >> i'm ready to coexist with the jews, with the christians with the arabs and nonarabs and those who agree with my ideas and also disagree with them. however i do not coexist with the occupiers with the settlers and those who-- it's one thing you to say you want to coexist with the jews it is another to say you want to coexist with the state of israel am dow want to coexist with the state of israel? do you want to recognize israel as a jewish state. >> no i said i do not want to live with a state of occupiers. i do however at that point dow want to coexist and recognize their right to exist as they would recognize your right to exist. >> when we have a palestinian state then the palestinian state will decide on its policiesment you cannot actually ask me about the future. i answered you. but palestinian people can have their say when they have their own state without occupation, in natural situations they can decide policies vis-a-vis others. >> rose: thank you pleasure to speak with you. >> for more about this program and earlier episodes visit us on-line@pbs.org an charlierose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org >> rose: fferning for charlie rose has been provided by the coca-cola company, supporting this program since 2002. >> american express and charles schwab. additional funding provided by: . this is nightly business report with tyler mathisen and suzie guerin. >> jam packed week from the jobs report to the first read on second quarter economic growth. the data will flow fast and furious, will it change anything for janet yellin and the feds. a new prognosis for two of the nation'sentitlement programs. medicare and social security. merger monday, $12 billion in deals helping to lift spirits on wall street. we'll tell you who is in a buying mood and why. all that and more tonight on nightly business report for monday july 28th. good night, everyone. the week started with a hint of
>> rose: additional funding provided by kohl qo >> and by bloomberg. a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: our focus tonight is on war in the middle east, the conflict between israel and hamas in gaza continues after a brief humanitarian truce unraveled on saturday. the death toll on the palestinian side has risen to over 1,000. over 50 israeli soldiers have lost their lives. on sunday president obama called israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu to urge an immediate, unconditional humanitarian cease-fire while the two sides pursued a comprehensive deal. early monday morning the united nations security council echoed the president's call. peace remains elusive. israel is surprised by the strength of hamas's rocket arsenal and the reach of its tunnel network, wants to neutralize both threats. hamas says it will not cease combat operations until the siege of gaz az is lifted and border crossings are open. peace negotiations are complicated because neither the united states norris real deal directly with hamas. this weekend a traveled to the capitol of qatar where khaled mashal the political leader of hamas lives in exile. i sat down for an hour long conversation with him on saturday. >> khaled mashal, thank you very much for allowing us to come to your home for a conversation about an especially this weekend. secretary kerry had asked for a week cease-fire so that the parties could negotiate. why didn't that happen? >> yes, he did observe the efforts and he came to the capitol of the region. and we do appreciate his efforts. we do appreciate the efforts that they seek to stop the bloodletting and to stop the carnage and we through the qatari foreign minister and turkish foreign minister will receive the ideas of kerry and the proposal that he did propose and we did-- seriously within our circuit of leadership inside and outside palestine to stop the israeli aggression and also to lift the siege and to stop the aggression and meet the demands of the palestinian people. however the israeli cabinet refused the paper of kerry. and they are to be held responsible. israel actually failed this paper and it has failed, the nine month negotiations that he actually-- between the israeli and palestinians. >> rose: as soon as you say that many people listening to you say the israeli aggression would not have happened if rockets from gaza had not rained down on israel. >> who did start this episode. you do understand that the events took place in the west bank. some teenagers were unaccounted for in the west bank and netanyahu actually didn't reign in the settlers. and they practiced a heinous crime. they burned alive a teenager. and then he moved to gaza, netanyahu, he started the aggression on gaza. and the rockets are actually a response for this aggression. >> rose: when you look at those israeli teenagers who were murdered, did hamas have anything to do with it? >> from the start i did declare and announce that we did not know who carried out such operation. up to this moment we don't foe who were the perpetrators. however netanyahu jumped to conclusion and accused hamas in order to justify his aggression on the west bank and on gaza. these settlers, actually, are looking at this on the west bank and these settlers are illegal. and its presence of the settlers is illegal. on the contrary, actually, the world did not take heed of the-- he was burned alive. >> rose: and prime minister netanyahu called his parents with a great apology and grief for the death of that young man. but you have not called the parents of the israeli teenagers who were killed. in fact, you said i cannot condemn the killing of settlers. >> there are two distinctions here. the first difference is as follows. those who burned him alive were settlers. and they were known israeli authority know them. however when it comes to the teenagers, nobody knew who killed them. the other distinction is as follows. mohammed lives in his country, in jerusalem. the settler does live on an illegal land. they are armed. they are-- the settle ares carry weapons and they kill the palestinians. and they run over women and children. they distort the lands and agriculture and the settlements are illegal and the settlers are illegal as well. their presence is illegal. >> rose: so you do you think the killing will begin anew after the cease-fire? >> there is no-- leader who respects himself condone the killing of his own people. those who were responsible for killing our people, 900 martin-- martyrs an 5 to 6,000 casualties, a lot of homes were actually taken into rubble. there are plenty of atrocities. netanyahu is responsible person. the war in gaza sends two messages, mr. charles, to the world. the first message, it is high time to lift the siege on gaza. gaza wants to live,. >> rose: that is exactly what secretary kerry has asked to be negotiated after the cease-fire, to have a week of cease-fire. so you could do that. but you're asking that to be done as a precondition to the negotiations. >> this is not a prerequisite. life is not the prerequisite. life is the right for our people in palestine, since 2006 when the world refused the outcome of the elections, our people actually lived under the siege of eight years. this is a collective punishment. we need to lift the siege. we have to have a vote. we have to have an airport this is the first message. the second message in all to stop the bloodletting, we need to look at the underlying causes. we need to look at the occupation. we need to stop the occupation. netanyahu didn't take heed of our rights. and mr. kerry months ago tried to find a window through the negotiations in order to meet our target, to live without the incubation, to reap our states. netanyahu has killed our hope, killed our dream. and he killed the american initiative. >> rose: but the egyptians had a cease-fire proposal which the israelis accepted and you didn't, yes? >> yes, we did not agree for two reasons. the first reason because this initiative does not lift the siege. it starts with the cease-fire. and then the subject up to negotiating that we don't know the outcome with. we know the approximation as follows. the other thing is as follows. the egyptians did not console, did not open a dialogue with the palestinian factions in gaza. however in the past, we managed with the egyptians a number of maneuvers. we have actually reached a truce. -- was released and so on and so forth but now the method was wrong. that why it has failed. >> rose: but here is what many people believe, that regard its before the israeli rocket came, there were hamas rockets. >> this is the narrative, israeli narrative. this is unaccount, israeli account. this incorrect, as i said to you, this started in the west bank. netanyahu actually was pressurized by-- especially and disgruntlement in the street of the israeli towns. and that's why they wanted-- he wanted to revenge. he started the-- this episode and we retall grated. we do not like to launch rockets. we do not want to target people. excuse me, i would like to give an example. if you look at the martyrs, the palestinians martyrs, most of them are civilians. however on the other side they are militants. they are combatants. this is eeh5atic of the morality of the resistance, and the immorality of the israeli aggression. >> rose: it is with respect not just israelis saying this. this is former president bill clinton, quote, hamas was perfectly well aware of what would happen if they started raining rockets on israel am they fired a thousand of them and they have a strategy designed to force israel to kill their own civilians so the rest of the world will condemn them. that's president clinton, not an israeli. a man who worked hard to create peace between palestinians and israelis. >> with all due respect to mr. clinton, unfortunately, the world doesn't want to blame the israelis because the rest of the world, indeed, know that the blame is on the side of the israelis. when it comes to the-- this didn't take place on the side of the palestinians. secondly, if you could imagine the following scenario. when the siege is lifted on gaza, when the occupation on the west bank, jerusalem and gaza is stopped and we reach a state, than wouldn't we have a window to stop the bloodletting and to have security for the israel why do you call for security for israel and why don't you call for lifting the siege and stopping the occupation of the palestinians. why don't you give the right to live for the palestinians as the other nations-- this is actually the last occupation in the world. >> rose: my understanding is that is exactly what secretary kerry is preparing and trying to do, to engage israel and hamas throug through-- through qatar and turkey to be able to deal to the issues of the border crossing, to deal to the issue of fishing rights, to deal to the issue of a port, to deal to the issue of the condition of the people in gaza. but you have to do that through negotiations. and that's what secretary is trying to do. but missiles are flying back and forth but gunned by hamas. >> mr. charlie, the method of the americans is actually incorrect. they know where are the rights of the palestinians. they know the errors of the israelis. they actually present us an umbrella for negotiations to the israelis and the palestinians, whether it is to do with the negotiations here and there. and they leave the palestinians subject to blackmailing. they do not compel israel, mahmoud anas had nine months of for examples and the outcome was zero. if we negotiate with israelies to lift the siege and stop the occupation, we then will be delving into a marathon of negotiations. the american administration will only resort to negotiations. they know crystal clear our rights and as the superpower they can compel the israelis. and i do actually call upon the administration through your-- not only to take heed of the symptoms, they need to diagnose the disease and they need to have our state, indeed, emerge on the borders of 1967. >> rose: '67, '67, you're not talking about 48y, you're talking about 67 borders. >> this is the problem. this is the problem that all the factions, all the palestinians factions have agreed upon, yes. >> rose: the problem is -- >> the problem, the problem is the siege and the occupation. the occupation and the siege are the problem. we have to stop the occupation. we have to stop the siege and then we can have security. >> rose: two questions, one, president obama said and others have said no nation can expect not to respond when rockets are being rained down on top of them. and the argument is it would not have happened if you had not sent those rockets in the beginning. >> let me move this beyond that. what is your short-term goals. and your long-term goals. >> well, first of all, will i go back to the account. those who started shooting is not gaza. they are not-- it's not gaza. the rockets were as a defense against the aggression. those who started the aggression is netanyahu and the israeli army. it's mr. booma. is surprised of such action. the question is as follows. do you expect any one not to respond if he is attacked in his own homeland. so gaza responded as well. so why obama and the leaders of the free world w why don't they surprise vis-a-vis the occupation of our land for several decades without having a window of hope. what what if it's possible for us to live time and time again under occupation, human beings, or to defend themselves. if are you pressurized, if you are nailed, we are served, if we are under blockade and siege we have to defend ourselve when we are subject in the west bank. in jerusalem hundreds of settlements, 600,000 settlers in there. and if netanyahu stops every single effort to reach a cease so the rest of the world knows to expect it an explosion in the west bank and gaza, what do i want. hamas needs a once peace, again. we want peace. but we want peace without occupation, without settlements, without ju-- without siege, we want to live on par we have ree single nation in the world. we need to live in palestine. >> rose: let me take you back to the time that the israelis withdrew. they took their settlers out. they took their military out. they said here is gaza. make it flourish. we're giving it back to you. we're taking the settlers out. we're taking the soldiers out. even american businessman gave some money here. did you miss an opportunity to take advantage of that? >> because sooner than later you began using that as a military place to rain rockets. >> yes, israel withdrew from gada. and expelled the settlers. however it started with aggression. you can actually ask the egyptians who were the sponsors of a number of initiatives who did violate the initiative. israel time and time again violates this and they don't need the palestinians to respond. yes, israel withdrew from gaza but they pulled the strategs of the crossings, the sea and the land and the air. so they are an occupation-- albeit they withdrew from gaza. so gaz is is not away from the aggression of israel. if gaza live was occupation, without aggression, without blockade, without closing of the crossings, without starvation, then we-- then this will be fine. and this applies actually to the west bank as well. because gaza and the west bank are two parts of the palestinian-- and we are one nation. we want to live without occupation in the west bank and in gaza. >> rose: you want to live in coexistence with israel? >> i do not coexist with occupation, with settlements. >> rose: so israel withdrews-- withdraws from gaza from the west bank, '67 borders. is that the beginning of a two state solution that will bring finally -- >> israel up to this moment did not give us any indication, any serious indication that they will withdraw from the west bank. if you look at the leaders' statements or otherwise. when israel practically commits itself to withdraw from gaza completely and the west bank without any settlement and if we have-- as our capitol and the return of the refugees is there, then we will reach peace. israel is killing-- . >> rose: if you have that will you pledge to the security of israel? will you pledge not to eradicate israel? >> do you think that palestinian who suffers from starvation and settlement can eradicate israel. this is a propaganda, a we giling misleading op ganda. we need to live in peace. >> rose: i done think you can eradicate it, i don't think you can. but i think that there needs to be a justice for palestinian, a territory for palestinian and two states. people are worried that the idea of a two state solution is slipping away. >> yes. the world is saying that the two state solution is slipping away, indeed. those who are caught. but who did actually lose, those who killed are the leaders of israel since the '70s and '80s. and then at the madrid conference and also accord. you can go back to all the american administrations and the leaders. a number of them actually tried. they went through-- i actually read the memoirs o of-- carter and they knew what was going on. those who killed the political path is israel. i can say that on air. the palestinian people in a nutshell want to live without occupation. want to live free in an independent state. we have two paths. the first one which is the better one is the peaceful one for the rest of the world to pressurize israel in order to compel it to withdraw. we say to the world thank you, we will live peacefully. and if this path failed t has failed actually, then we have to resist. we have to defend ourselves as all the nations did. >> rose: so rather than saying we can't eradicate israel y don't you say we don't want to eradicate israel. we want to live side-by-side having a full state for us, and for our people. why can't you say that? >> what does it mean when hamas agrees with fatah and all the factions in the unity government and says that our national goal, that we is joined forces to reach is to have a state on the borders of '67, with jerusalem as the capitol and the return of-- that means everything palestinian actually agreed on this. who throw-- in the world t is israel. israel actually negotiated with arafat and killed the-- in him. israel is negotiating with abbas and is failing him. israel is killing can the peace process. nobody can blame the palestinians. the arabs had the initiative in 2002 in beirut. 12 years later what did israel dop. the american administration what did it do, and the palestinians actually provided all the positive indication in order to reach a genuine peace. but those who killed it is israel. she says that she wants the peace but it wants security. and it wants the land only. how can it have the land and security and not reach the peace. >> rose: what you reflect is what martin indyk without worked with secretary kerry said s the problem leer in the end is palestinians don't trust the israelis. and the israelis don't trust the palestinians. in the end that's the problem. how do you get beyond that? how do you create trust? >> mr. charles, do you think that the key for the solution is trust? we are actually enemies. they are the occupiers. we are enemies. the solution doesn't start with trust. as i said, the solution starts with the international community's volumician to say to the israeli occupation stop. enough is enough. they ought to compel israel to withdraw. so how could i trust my enemy? and we had a number of negotiations, and the negotiations were failing. >> rose: do you believe israel acts at the behest of the united states? >> the capacity of the american administration to pressurize israel has nothing to do with israel listening to the-- to america. but it emanates from the fact that it is a superpower, ie america. it is responsible for that. why did america come to iraq and why did it expel saddam hussein from kuwait in 1991. was iraq subservient to america, no. any nation that supersedes the red lines, then the superpower ought to compel the other to meet their international standard. eisenhower in the '50s actually pressurized the israelis after the war of '56 to move away from sinai. the administration, they can do that. but now they don't want to exercise the moral responsibility, and they know the shortcoming has to do with israel. >> rose: and begun and sad at were able to form-- sadat were able to form an agreement at camp david. the israelis gave back territory and the-- signed a peace agreement. >> yes this is good, begun withdrew, for sharon, ohl mert, they withdrew. why israel actually had an overture for the syria, and they had also an agreement with the egyptians, why israel is insisting on keeping the west bank and jerusalem. >> rose: let me ask you this. do you believe that you can solve this by violence? >> in our culture as arabs and muslims, we have a prophet saying, the prophet said the prophet had two choices. and he followed the easiest choice. that means we ought to follow the easiest path, the better path. as a palestinian i want to be liberallized. i want a state. i want to live without occupation because we don't like to kill our sons and daughters. but if we don't have the peace, then the resistance is legitimate. so the world has two choices. they need to help us reach a state or we will expel the occupation from our land. >> rose: so unless the world will take the israelis out of the west bank, and gaza, you will expel them militarily. that's your objective. you believe you can do that? >> i do believe this as i see you now, it is a conviction. why? >> because time and time in the history of nations says that people have the upper hand over the occupation. albeit there are disproportionate standards. yes, they have the upper hand but every single occupation ends and the people become victorious. i have the will. i can die because of israel. however, those looters who occupy our land, they love the life. i cannot live under the occupation. the occupation is the worst thing that you can ever imagine. so every single palestinian can die for the next generation to live in peace and freedom. >> rose: let me talk about hamas and gaza. it is said that hamas and its governance was in a bad way. it could not even pay its civil servants. and therefore they are open to a unity agreement with the palestinian authority. and mr. abbas. is that unity working today? >> what roll does mr. abbas play in all of this? >> hamas. >> first and foremost hamas used to suffer, however its management of gaza was successful indeed. we surmounted every single challenge. i actually challenge any government to manage 1.8 million people in our circumstances. we were successful. but indeed, yes in the last few months, we fell short of paying the civil servants, indeed. and this the responsibility of the international community. but this didn't compel us or propel us of the unity. the unity was to do with our right. all we didn't want to pull the strings of governance. we are wanted for unit government. israel prevented it from sending the transaction, sending the money for the gazans so the gazans said enough is enough. you wants to have a blockade on us, the crossing blocks, our casualties or our ill people cannot travel. we cannot go to universities, it is an open air jail, 50,000-- 50,000 civil servants along with families that amount to quarter of a million people were deprived from the money had. that is why gaza has turned into a time ticking bomb that plu in -- blew in the face of israel why dow kill us for election calculations. netanyahu, agressed and blocks. crossing. why we don't have an airport, how could you ask us why do you-- why are you surprised because of our resistance. reresist and we not transgress. when it comes to mr. mahmoud abbas. he is our partner. he is the palestinian president, he is our partner in the reconciliation. nd you accept his leadership to negotiate with the israelis through secretary kerry an can speak for hamas and hamas accepts his it principleses an his values and his negotiating stance. >> mr. mahmoud abbas is the palestinian president. he is our boss, authority and when it comes it to negotiations there are no negotiations any more. actually netanyahu tamp eled -- trampled on telephone. and he turned away every single choice, american choice, actually, american backing, so this is an il use. hamas-- illusion, hamas has talked about the management of the palestinian decision. mr. abbas nine months ago went unilaterally. he didn't consult us. he didn't consult the other palestinian facs, however we as palestinians are ready to participate in rich rooing the political decision. but it has to be institutionalized and it has to be-- linked to our people t the volition of our people whether it was mahmoud abbas or others. but the problem-- please, allow me pinning the hopes on negotiations is incorrect. how you could negotiate a person who actually denies your prize. netanyahu thinks that the west bank is an israeli land. so how coy negotiate him. look at me. negotiations are successful when there are prerequisites, ma muir-- mature ple recognize businessities. our negotiations with israel is failing because israel has the upper hand and it doesn't take heed of what we say. >> some say the issue for israel is they have security, they insist they must have idf forces, israeli defense forces on the jordan river. they suggest, you know, that they have to be restrictions on the sovereignty of a palestinian state. all of that is unacceptable. to you and to mr. abbas and to anybody who represents the palestinian viewpoint. >> why-- dow understand the security issues, the israeli security issues and on the other side does not take heed of the palestinian security issues. secondly, when it comes to the solution in order to have the palestinian state, why the state asked not to be independent, why ought to be demilitarized. why is it to be not sovereign. this is a live and you cannot transgress me and as a palestinian have the right to live in a sovereign country, to have a militarized state on par with britain, on par with america. who accepts a state without arms. it will be subject to the aggression of others. i cannot accept any tutelage of any other entity. but if you say come, you are a palestinian and we can give you a piece here and there and a piece male fashion, no. you know the palestinian people are very cultivated and the palestinian people did struggle and they are civilized. and they have plenty of brains. but now we are deprived from freedom, deprived from independence. my message to mr. obama, to the world, to america which talked about democracy time and time again, we need to apply their standard on palestine in order not to have a double standard. >> rose: let me ask you about this. it is also said that hamas was out of sight and almost out of mind before this most recent explosion of violence which puts us in this conflict today you had seen, you left damascus, syria is no long are supporting you. it is said the apply iran that you had met with the supreme leader and was not supporting you. egypt was clearly not supporting you the way general morsi was. general sisi has a different attitude. he closed the border. that you are alone, almost, except for qatar. is that a fair observation of where hamas is today? >> they try, they want to read us as you explained. actually i will leave it to you. you can think that we are on a difficult position. but in this conflict, we did fight its occupants. the world was surprised of our resistance against one of the most powerful army, the israeli army. this sends a message and says that hamas's power has nothing to do with the regional circumstances or the-- circumstances. it emanates from its sticking to its people in support of the palestinian people because it represents the palestinian people's needs and aspirations. we reflect the aspirations. the palestinians long for freedom, long for independence. they think that hamas is doing well. >> do you believe -- >> the power, the genuine power of hamas power, if this country supports me or not, yes, this will affect me from time to time but it is a sideline kind of impact. but our power is the justice of our cause. >> so you believe and you are saying to me that the people in gaza who are suffering the most in this, understand and support everything that hamas is doing, notwithstanding the terrible consequences for civilian and for children. >> they support you, they believe, they're willing to endure this war because they think that what? >> it might sound contradicting. the image might be contradictory but it is actually the truth, the voices of all the palestinians in gaza. they say we are suffering, indeed, because of the crimes of israel, the carnage and also the homes that were reduced to rubble am but they say we don't want to emerge from this war without breaking the siege works lifting the siege and actually we were dying slowly. now we are dying instantly because of the f-16 and all the technology, the american technology. the palestinian people is had enough. they do not make distinctions to be a slow or instant death. they say yes, we are suffering. they say we are suffering but we want resistance. we want full resistance on reaching, lifting the siege. >> rose: there is also this issue that comes up between the discussion, and i want to go to the negotiations now. representatives, the foreign minister of turkey, the foreign minister of qatar is meeting with its secretary of state of the united states in paris. tell us what is going on. what is the secretary of state acting through qatar and turkey of you. what does he want from you? >> yes, the it is to do with the-- from different countries. they want-- about their reconstruction of gaza and providing assistance. this is good and we do appreciate these efforts. we thank every single country that provides assistance to our people. however, this is not enough only. because the coast, the-- it is not only humanitarian t is national, it is political. the other thing is that to lift the siege as i said and to finish the occupation. as for mr. obama-- the ministers were here. we met them and they want to paris. and part of their talk with mr. kerry and the european leaders in addition to recognize construction and providing assistance is to seek a way whereby we can reach an agreement to stop this war and secure lifting the siege. and we said to them, any agreement that stops the aggression and lifts the siege and meets the demands of the palestinians, we will cooperate with it. we cooperate with mediators. even the mission of kerry. we cooperated. we want it to be successful. however the israeli cabinet refused it. >> so if the siege is endnd and by that you mean the borders are open, the port is open, fishing rights, what else? >> these are the fundamental issues in gaza. and the west bank, as well since the 12th of june, israel rounded up hundreds and some of them actually were those people who were released. so that means that israel has violated the agreement of 12. if these demands were met and the gazans felt that the siege is lifted be sure the war is stopped. >> rose: there will be no more rocketses and no morris rheal rockets going from. >> can the qataries and turkey authorize that deal for you, are they authorized to do that. they can make that deal. >> yes, yes, we have authorized them and we ask them to observe every single effort to leave-- in order to-- actually we welcome the mediation with the america and the egyptians as well. we do not have veto on any effort of any single state or nation. our condition ask to meet the demands of our people, lift the siege to stop the occupation and the rest of the demands. >> some people raise this question, do you have to get approval from the military wing of hamas who are fighting now in gaza? do you have to have their approval before you can make a commitment? we are not two heads or two parts. we are one single movement 9 decision is too deal with the political leaders. when the polit call leaders commit to something then the military wing will commit itself. >> are you the political leadser, so if you make a decision, the military will follow. >> yes, definitely, definitely, yes, definitely, we are an institution. we are a respected institution. the leaders when they make a decision, then every single person within the movement, whether he or she or militants or civilians, they will follow. so the leaders do not take any steps unless it meets the demands of all palestinian people. >> some also ask why are you here and not in gaza, that if, in fact, you are the voice of hamas, you should be in hamas, in gaza with the people of gasa, that's the place for you there is the very reason of the question, logical question you can ask not only to you ask ask 6 million people why they are not at the west bank, why they are not in gaza. because israel has expelled the palestinians in 1948 and in 1967. since 1967 i was expelled actually i'm from ramallah, from west bank, i was expelled and millions were compelled to live outside their own country. and they actually are compelling another to live under its occupation it is natural for me to be there but the occupation doesn't allow me to do so you have hundreds of thousands of palestinians in america and they long to go back to palestine although-- all be they are american citizens. palestinians long for their home country, that's why we insiess on the return of the refugees, for me and others to return. >> so are you saying the only reason you are not there is because you can't get there. >> yes, definitely. my natural existence is there but here i'm compelled to be. i used to live in jordan, in kuwait. when i used to be a student and then i moved to syria, now if qatar. palestinians follow a nomadic kind of journey it is actually a daunting journey. that is why it is high time for the occupation to stop and the settlements to be stopped and for the people of palestine to be empowered to have their own state and for the refugees in the camps to come back to their own land. >> how do you think this will end? >> every single occupation ought to fail and every single occupation ought to stop and every single settlement ought to perish. yes, it is difficult, we'll pay a price, mandela played-- paid plenty but he was victorious at the enof the day, ultimately. the palestinian people will be independent. that's why i say so every single soul, i say to the american. >> he was an-- in coexistence, he recognized and reconciled with the people that he was in competition with and without put him in jail. yes, due he didn't live with the occupants, because the system was different. it was a democratic system later on. all of the south africans lived within democracy. but israel wants to be occupiersnd others ought to live in its shadow this sun reasonable. those genuine people who are the landowners, we are the owners of this land. and we ought to live free on our land and not under any other tutelage. >> dow believe that the israelis want to be occupiers, that they do not want to and will not willingly give up the west bank? >> you'll have to take it back. >> these are their statements. these are the statements of all the leaders of israel even when they negotiate in the past and abbas what do they say. they primesed they say we want the jordan valley or they procrastinate. we want in settlement to be here and there and israel in the west bank what does it do? today the west bank resembl resembles-- israel thinks that the best bank-- west bank spart and par sell of israel that is why they refuse any solution. >> history also shows that israel withdrew from southern lebanon, history shows that they withdrew from gaza. and there's no reason to believe they will not withdraw from the west bank yes, this is true but we ought to draw lessons. when did they withdraw. they withdrew under the military pressure from south lebanon. an sharon withdrew from gaza under pressure after the second intefada, second uprising. and then after the 1973 war they withdrew from sinai, israel believes in the language of power, when they are compelled it to do so, they do withdrew. i have two models here. israel actually withdrew. they followed in 1956 after american administration compelled it and in lebanon they did so because of the military pres sewer as well. >> so the killing will continue in gaza. >> we hope that it will not continue one single moment. they kill every day 120 civilians. if we kill them we kill militants. who enter gaza we do not wish for the killings to continue. we wish for our people to live without occupation and for the siege to be lifted this is a humanitarian right for the people of the world ought to believe in this. >> rose: dow hope israel survives as a state? i don't want to have my own con jeckure. i reessential the resistance but the cia and kissinger, for example an other pundits say they are aware that israel is a fragile state. it resorts to occupation and aggression. it services the west, they are looted an that's why they are-- at the core and israeli leaders know that they are occupies that is why they have anxiety they suffer from anxiety and i think that the occupation has no future and the western politics ought to be reformed i do understand, i do know that are you a superpower are you a civilized people and we don't have any problem with the united states or the american people. we have a problem with the foreign policy and the bias vis-a-vis israel. arabs and muslims want to live with all the people. they want to coexist with others to have mutual interests with others but we do not want for the west to support israel. >> let me just ask you this because of who you are. there is a war going on in iraq what do you make of isis and what they are trying to do in iraq. >> who had paved the way for such sectarianism to flare up in iraq, i think is the american occupation of iraq in 2003. they destroyed the iraqi government. they did not topple saddam hussein but they destroyed the iraqi army. the iraqi security, the institution. so i hope that in our hand in afghanistan n iraq and syria, i hope a peace will be reached and i hope to pull their own string was any intervention from the rest of the world. i hope the christians and muslims here, sunnies can coexist with each other. unfortunately israel and the american foreign policy lead to these contra-- contradictions and they might be happy because this will tear into the arab body. >> dow believe that isis will be able to create a chall i fat. >> this is a different chubt. and you know that most muslims, this doesn't appeal to them but as i said when it comes to players, you can see such ideas. we in hamas believe in the moderation of islam. we are not fanatics. we are not fundamentalists. we do not actually fight the jews because they are jews per se. we do not fight any other races. we fight the occupiers. on the contrary, we actually respect the religious people. we ask for tolerance for coexistence between the buddhist, the jews, the christians and the muslims. as you know god created us as nations, we are different. and its koran says that in order for the nations to live together and coexist without any blockade. >> i think i just heard you say and we will close on this, you believe in the coexistence in people and therefore you believe in the coexistence of palestinians and israelis in the middle east. >> i can't coexist with occupation. but without occupation you can coexist. >> i'm ready to coexist with the jews, with the christians with the arabs and nonarabs and those who agree with my ideas and also disagree with them. however i do not coexist with the occupiers with the settlers and those who-- it's one thing you to say you want to coexist with the jews it is another to say you want to coexist with the state of israel am dow want to coexist with the state of israel? do you want to recognize israel as a jewish state. >> no i said i do not want to live with a state of occupiers. i do however at that point dow want to coexist and recognize their right to exist as they would recognize your right to exist. >> when we have a palestinian state then the palestinian state will decide on its policiesment you cannot actually ask me about the future. i answered you. but palestinian people can have their say when they have their own state without occupation, in natural situations they can decide policies vis-a-vis others. >> rose: thank you pleasure to speak with you. >> for more about this program and earlier episodes visit us on-line@pbs.org an charlierose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org >> rose: fferning for charlie rose has been provided by the coca-cola company, supporting this program since 2002. >> american express and charles schwab. additional funding provided charles schwab. additional funding provided by: man: it's like holy mother of comfort food.ion. woman: throw it down. it's noodle crack. patel: you have to be ready for the heart attack on a platter. crowell: okay, i'm the bacon guy. man: oh, i just did a jig every time i dipped into it. man #2: it just completely blew my mind. woman: it felt like i had a mouthful of raw vegetables and dry dough. sbrocco: oh, please. i want the dessert first! [ laughs ] i told him he had to wait.
given them and the plane blankets and you just felt like you could see them and hear them having those conversations with their kids, with their spouses. you know, minutes before this had happened. it just felt, it felt unbelievable, you know, it felt like it was impossible that it had happened krz we conclude this evening with driss el yazami, the head of a national human rights council in morocco. >> i think that the challenge in our region, you know, when you see what is in libya, iraq now, egypt,iamen, syria, you know, the challenge in our region, i think, how to reform democratic and peaceful way. we have to accomplish in the arab world in some decades what you in the united states accomplished in five, six centuries. krz rondermer, sabrina tavernise and driss el yazami, when we continue. funding for charlie rose is provided by the following: >> there's a saying around here: you stand behind what you say. around here, we don't make excuses, we make commitments. and when you can't live up to them, you own up and make it right. some people think the kind of accountability that thrives on so many streets in this country has gone missing in the places where it's needed most. but i know you'll still find it, when you know where to look. >> rose: additional funding provided by: >> and by bloomberg. a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. krz we continue our coverage of the conflict in gaza, earlier today israel announced a four hour humanitarian cease-fire, that cease-fire has passed punctuated in any case from attacks on both sides, israel strikes on a busy market killed at least 15 and injured 150 others. last note reports suggested israeli shells hit a united nations school in gaza quilling at least 20. joining me is rondermer israel's ambassador to the united states. i'm pleased to have him back on this program. welcome back. >> great to be with you, charlie. >> rose: tell me what is happening at this moment in terms of your communication with your government on the ground in gaza. >> look, we're trying to get to a sustainable cease-fire that will essentially achieve three goals. the first is bring an end to these rocket attacks. we've had nearly 3,000 rockets that have been fired at israel, and were two-thirds of our country, equivalent to about 200 million americans who have had to go into bomb shelters for the last three weeks multiple times a day. the secosthing we want to do is take care of these tunnels. the tunnels that have been dug from gaza into israel where terrorists infiltrate, pop out the israeli side, try to kill civilian, soldiers, we lost a number of soldiers from the tunnel attacks. we found dozens of them and were in the process of destroying them as we speak, so we want to make sure during a cease-fire, after a cease-fire, we need to destroy those tunnels. and the third thing we want to do is we want to make sure that a gaza doesn't simply, that hamas doesn't rearm itself after. because we've now had three rounds of confrontation with hamas. the first was in 2008. the end of 2008. then we had pillar of defense in november 2012. this is the third time. and we have to make sure we don't have a fourth one in a year, a year and a half so that means we need to have an effective mechanism to prevent hamas from just rearming, rebuilding all those tunnels, rebuilding those rockets. and those are the discussions we're having now. how do you effect not only an immediate cease-fire but a sustainable cease-fire. >> those will argue with you who will argue that if you wipe out hamas what will come after them will be worse than hamas. >> listen, i suppose you could always make that argument. i read a book once, i think was the rise and fall of the third reich about the british ambassador at the time to ger men-- germany telling his home office in london that they should take it easy with hitler because the next guy will be worse. you know, hamas is a genocidal terror organization. they call for not just the destruction of israel, would be bad enough, and they not only are firing thousands of rockets and have suicide bombers and these tunnels and every single ago of terror you can think of, they also call for the murder of jews worldwide. these are people who were dancing on 9/11 when thousands of americans were dead and the leader of hamas, mr. hani who is right now hidden somewhere in gaza actually condemned the united states for killing osama bin laden it is hard to imagine swb worse than hamas. >> rose: so you're trying to wipe out the hamas leadership today. and if so does that mean khaled mashal. >> we have not-- our directive and the objective of this operation is sustained peace and quiet for israel. israel has had to take action against this terror organization that, by the way, is not just recognized as a terror organization in the united states. it's also recognized in the eu, australia and canada, including in egypt it considered to be a terror organization. so we've taken certain measures over the years in order to protect our people. and will continue to do what's necessary to protect our people. but the goal of our operation is not to reconquer gaza, not fully dismantle hamas there, that's a goal that militarily could be achievable. but that's not the goal of the operation. it's to restore sustained quiet, hopefully we want to do that diplomatically if we can, if not militarily. >> but the question is what do you think is being to be necessary. because also those who argue the only way you can ever do that is simply to occupy gaza and that's the last thing you want to do. >> look, after, let's take the last operation in 2012 pillar of defense. most people at the time were opposed to a cease-fire because they were afraid we were going to be in another round very soon. it turns out that that cease-fire held more or less for about a year and a half. in 2013 was the quietest year in israel. it didn't mean there were no rockets am we had 74 rockets and mortars fired at israel over the course of 2013. that ended up being the quietest period for a decade. the hope is after this round that hamas will be deterred from taking action, both because we have degraded its capabilities, and also because we have damaged its intention of attacking us knowing that they're to the going to get away with attacks us with impunity that they will pay a heavy price. the additional hope is that right now maybe because of the changing government in egypt that we might be able to put in place mechanisms that will make it exceedingly difficult for hamas to rearm and to rebuild its arsenal in gaza. if that happens you'll have sustained quiet for a much longer time period. >> "the washington post" today lead story gaza war hugely popular in israel. public support is broad and growing. also finds high approval of netanyahu's leadership. when i talk to the people in hamas they say the same thing about the people in gaza supporting what hamas is doing. >> well, that's not true. because hamas just has to execute people in gaza who were challenging their rule. i don't know if it has been widely reported in the press. but the people in gasa, i think, there is a lot of anecdotal evidence. i don't know how they conduct polls in gaza that they are fed up with hamas because they know they are not achieving anything. i'm sure there are many people in gaza, obviously. they're not great designists and when are you foyting a war and being hit in a war, no one is going look towards israel and say they support israel. i think they understand that hamas is taking them down the wrong path. the difference, charlie s that the people of gaza can't speak out any more than the people of iran who dislike their regime can go out and speak out. because these are brutal regimes that crush all descent. hamas executed people who spoke against them because they don't want a situation where they're facing the rage of the people of gaza. >> rose: how far will israel go to wipe out hamas? >> how far are you willing to go to achieve your objective? >> well, we will have to go as far as we have to go. you hope you don't have to go all the way. and reconquering the-- conquering the whole area to wipe them out. i want to remind you 12 years ago, in operation defensive shield that was an operation that was launched during the second anti-fatah after one of the worst periods of terror attacks in israeling we had one month in march of 200023 where we lost hundreds of israelies to suicide bombings including that pass over satter bombing and we launched a military operation in the west bank, and we went into all these palestinian areas. and we dismantled the terror infrastructure that existed in the west bank at the time. it took a long time. it took a couple of years. we built a security fence in terrorism emanating from the west bank. in the case of a we have not done such a broad and sweeping operation. and that is not the current goal of the current operation. but who knows? hamas may think that they are just going to keep firing, not have a cease-fire, continue to make their people pay this horrific price, and we might have to take further action. we hope that that doesn't action. we hope we can find a cease-fire that can be turned into a sustainable cease-fire. >> rose: what are you hearing from the united nations? because of what was happening in the last 24 hours to that united nations facility? >> well, look, it's important also to get the facts straight. because the second something happens, you know, you see these pictures there is a rush to judgement on israel. we had a case two days ago, where there were reports that there was an attack on a hospital in gaza and an attack on a refugee camp where a number of children were killed. and of course most reports say that israel was responsible. some of the more fair-minded people said well, we don't know the facts yet. it has become a "he said, she said" situation. and then the truth was very clear yesterday. where we got a radar photo that showed that that hospital and that refugee camp, i actually have it here. i don't know if you can see it on the screen here, but you can see rit here. >> rose: i can see,. >> so we know right here we had a rocket fired from inside gaza, these rockets were actually fired by palestinian islamic jihad. they fired a salvo of four rockets of one of them went into the sea. one of them hit the hospital. one of them hit the refugee camp. and one of them went to-- and was intercepted by the iron dome. so here was a case where everyone rushed to judgement against israel, said how could israel attack a hospital. how could israel attack kids playing on a playground. and it turned out that that was completely false. those were rockets that were fired by islamic jihad in gaza at israel that fell short b 10% of the 2,000 plus rockets fired at israel, nearly 3,000 locates, i should say, fall within gaza. now the case of the u.n. schools that you mentioned, i don't know if we have investigated exactly what happened in the school. but we don't target u.n. schools. what we are very concerned about is that hamas has used u.n. schools, as storage depots for their weapons. we have had now three schools that have rockets have been found there. now unra is this organization, you know, the initials u-n-r-w-a, supposed to be the relief workers it is not supposed to be a rocket warehouse. and that is what you have with the u.n. schools. we now may have found that a tunnel. >> rose: how large-- some are not. >> well, i'm not saying that they all are but how can you have u.n. schools used to score rockets that sun acceptable. people should be outraged about this. now we may have a considered coulding to reports just before i walked in here, we may have had a tunnel that came from a u.n. medical clinic, one of these tunnels that are used to attack israel, kill our civilians, it actually may have originated in the u.n. medical clinic. and in trying to actually destroy that tunnel, a number of our soldiers were killed because it was booby trapped. the world has got to speak out against the use of human shields. we are dealing with an enemy, charlie, that both fires on our civilians, people understand that. but they are using hospital, schools and mosques in a way that is unacceptable. >> rose: and the world is asking, and many people who are friends of israel are asking, how far is it necessary to go to achieve the objective that you think are important. and do we have to have this level of violence against the people of gaza in order to achieve the objective you said, a period of quiet. >> look, we're not targeting any civilians. >> rose: whether you target them or not, ron, they're being hit. you know you had more than a thousand people die, many of them, most of them are civilians and many of them are children. >> first of all, i don't think most of them are civilians and i wouldn't rush to judgement on that hundreds of hamas fighters have been killed. time after time these statistics come out, they're from a principle health ministry run by hamas and they say everybody is a civilian, wait, hold your horses. will you see that, mind you, you invite me back on your show hopefully after it is all said and done and will you see at least 50% of these people are hamas fighters. but understand, we are under a stack-- attack. the way israel should be judged by the international community is not by some standard of perfection. the international community every serious responsible country has to act. how would we act when faced with aye similar threat. how would we act when thousands of rockets are being fired. how we ago if our military is going in, house-to-house and become fired upon. how would we act if you had an enemy that was using human shields and using hospitals, mosques and schools to store weapons. are we just going hold back and fire rock epts at us or are we going to go and try to root this out. in the most cautious way, no military in history has used such caution and made such an effort to get the innocence of the other side out of harm away. that is a fact. >> rose: where are they going to go to get out of harm away. because the time between the notice and how they can get people together and in some cases has not been that long. >> in most cases it's been pretty long. usually we give them a couple of days to get out of major areas where we know there is going to be ground forces coming in. in some of the worst battles, we told them 48 hours before to get out. and we tell them not only to get out of point a but where to go to point b that they won't be hit. they have places to go. unfortunately, the whole u.n. system has been penetrated by hamas. this is a major problem. how do you not have a safe haven, a u.n. school or a hospital or a mosque, how can you not have places in gaza. and the reason is, is because these people, hamas, will do anything. and they have no moral inhibitions whatsoever. they don't play by any set of rules. that is what israel is dealing with. >> rose: are there any circumstances in which you would deal with hamas directly? what would they have to do? give me one through ten that they would have to do. >> i will give you one through three. >> rose: okay. >> they have to recognize israel's right to exist. they have to abandon terrorism and accept previous agreements. those are the conditions not made by israel but by the international community to be a legitimate interlock eter with israel am we will not deal with people who call for their destruction what do we negotiate w the terms of our destruction. it's unacceptable. >> rose: i realize are you not going negotiate the terms of why destruction. so tell me, if they, in fact, as you know, i did an interview with the political leader of hamas. and i thought i heard you criticize me because i kept pursuing the question of what are you prepared to do and do you trek israel's right to exist. suppose they would come to that conclusion, without that change things? >> of course. then are you in a different reality. that's what happened when the plo crossed the rubicon and decided to recognize israel's right to exist and to abandon terrorism. unfortunately, they didn't abide by that commitment and yassir arafat was saying one thing in the west an something else to his own people and also waged war. mahmoud abbas has been different in that he has not partaken in violence but palestinian society, charlie, is basically split in two. on the one hand you have half of the political leadership of the palestinians who are committed to israel's destruction openly. and the other half 6 the palestinian society is not really prepared to confront the first half. that's the problem. they're not committed to violence. and it's good that president abbas has not been committed to violence. we don't take that for granted. but for hamas to actually be a peace partner, they have to accept israel's right to exist. they don't. and they say they never will. that's what we're dealing with. we're dealing with this terror organization that wants to destroy it and will just arm itself in order to achieve that goal. >> rose: looking at the negotiations that are taking place, that have taken place, john kerry was in paris negotiating with the foreign minister of qatar and foreign minister of turkey. david ignatius who you know was critical for attempting to negotiate with qatar instead of egypt and fatah, with the palestinian authority. do you agree with david ignatius on that? or do you think you should talk to somebody who talks to hamas. >> look, there is an issue in actually achieving the cease-fire because the relationship between the egyptian government and hamas is not the same that it was. but i can tell you, charlie, neither turkey or qatar are positive influences in our region. and everyone should know the egyptian proposal, the cease-fire proposal is the only guil in town. and i think they should be pushed, hamas, to accepting that cease-fire. they're obviously under enormous political pressure, economic pressure and now military pressure from israel. but there is only one route and that is to accept the egyptian proposals. and then to try to find a way to moverward so that we don't repeat these operations every year and a half, every couple of years. >> rose: i'm sure you've asked yourself this, and certainly israeli military leadership and political leadership has asked it. why under the barack-- barrage that are being rained down upon them and what is happening in the gaza, why do you think they're continuing? >> well, other than the general rule that they want to attack jews and they want to destroy israel, specifically now i think it's because they're under enormous pressure. they're politically isolated. they have no friends in the region. the change in egypt i think has hurt them considerably because the he gyp-s have knocked out about 90% of the tunnels. the tunnels used between egypt and gaza to smuggle weapons and smuggle goods. they were kicked out of syria because of the battles that were taking place there. so their friends in the region are basically qatar, the turks and iranians, that's it they're under enormous economic pressures because once those tunnels were destroyed, that was a source of income for hamas. and they're not getting income from the tunnels in the way they did before. they're also not getting income from the palestinian authority. we collect tax revenues for the pa. we transfer them over to the pa every month. the pa is not transfering to hamas to pay their salaries. so they are under enormous political and economic pressures. and what they want to do is break out of this isolation, economic pressure. >> rose: should the pa be transferred it over to hamas to pay the civil servants. >> no. >> rose: why. >> why do we want to strengthen a terror organization. what's the point. i mean they're on life-support. they want to fire rockets at israel to get out of their problem. why should we give them more energy? why dow want to recharge a battery which is only for destruction? that's what they want to do. and that's why once we get a cease-fire proposal, and hopefully they will agree to it because they are paying a very heavy price, we have to make sure that it's sustainable by having mechanisms in place that prevent them from rearming in the future. here's the interesting thing, charlie. the egyptian government may make it very difficult now because of their relationship to hamas to actually get to a cease-fire. but unlike the morsi government, the previous muslim brotherhood government in egypt t may be much easier to make a cease-fire sustainable. because now you have a partner in egypt that doesn't want to see hamas rearm. and we don't want to see hamas rearm in israel. and that makes it more likely that we can have a sustainable cease-fire. >> rose: well, not only that, in order to somehow get to some equilibrium here, the egyptians would have to agree to open the borders again. >> well, israel has not had a problem with open borders between egypt and gaz az. >> rose: egypt does. >> look, that's another question. and i'm sure that egypt will make the decisions that they think are in egypt's interest but i can tell you from israel's point of view, we don't have a problem with goods coming into gaza. we actually put goods into gaza that come in through israel and transit points that we have and also during the war it's important to note we're putting a lot of food and medicine in every single day, even while they're firing rockets at our civilians, killing our soldiers, supplies are constantly going into gaza, we don't have a problem with those passages being hopefully manned by the pa which would be a palestinian authority which would be much better than hamas. goods going in. our problem is with weapon smuggling going in and also dual use items like concrete, iron, chemicals. now you remember, charlie, two years ago, circumstances months ago even, a year ago am people mr. saying look, why are you preventing these concretes. and iron, these heartless israelies that are not allowing the people of gaza to build a better future. well, the problem that we have, charlie, is they were using the concrete to build this labyrinth subterranean fortress of these tunnels under nooelt gaza. they were using iron to manufacture their rockets to be fired at israel. that's the problem we have. we have to have a mechanism in place that makes sure that goods are going to build a better future for the people of gaza and not to fuel hamas's war machine. that is what we have to discuss once we get to a cease-fire. >> rose: why isn't your objective simply to destroy hamas. why don't you go all the way and say we're going to wipe them out. >> as i said people in israel advocate that but that's not the objective rses tell me that is not the-- why that is not the objective. i realize the foreign minister makes that point. so why isn't it the objective. >> first of all it is an objective that is militarily achievable. but the reason is everything comes with a price. israel can go do that. it would be a very big price for our soldiers. it wob a huge price for palestinian civilians, considering what hamas is and how they embed themselves in the civilian population. and frankly, charlie, hamas is not the only enemy that israel faces. prime minister of israel who has the weight of the world on his shoulders and is responsible for the security and survival of israel has to look at the entire region and all the threats facing israel, not just in one front. we have many, many issues we have to deal with. we have hezbollah in the north, they have 100,000 rockets. we have basically the disintegration of many of the states in the region and security problems that arise from that. the worst security danger for israel is iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. so the prime minister has a very full plate of security threats. and it's not just one problem g in there and sol of this one problem. because there are other issues that the prime minister has to deal with. and he has to make a decision and a calculation what is the most important thing for israel's security at any specific time. and that's why he outlined specifically the goal, not to dismantle all of hamas's infrastructure, not to reconquer gaza but to restore peace and quiet for the people of israel. that's through deterrents, not through conquering gaza. >> rose: thank you so much for joining us. >> thank you. >> rose: rondermer is the ambassador from israel to the united states. he was recently pro pile-- profiled in "the new york times" and he was described in that article as bebe's brain, that and more. back in a moment, stay with us. is. >> sabrina tavernise has been covering ukraine for "the new york times". she was one of the first journalists to reach the crash site of malaysian air 17. two weeks ago on this program you saw her first report from the scene courtesy of cbs news. this week she's able to join us for a longer discussion. and i'm pleased to have her here. let me just go back to the crash scene though. i mean how soon did you get there? >> so we got there at around 8:00 p.m. which was a couple of hours after the plane had been shot out of the sky it it was coming close to getting dark. there were a few sort of rag tag firefighters putting out what was actually a quite large fire in the fuselage area of the plane. i had come from amsterdam and it had only made it an hour or so so it was full of fuel it was burning hotly and largely. and but really other than the firefighters, there weren't really many people out there. there were some rebels kind of milling around. there were some villagers. the plane had landed, the hulk, the biggest part had landed in between these two little villages where, people had cows and chickens an were very rural agricultural peasants. and we got out of the car. and looked around. and it was the most-- really incomprehensible contrast, i think i had ever seen in my life. there were these incredibly beautiful expanses of farmland, sun flower fields, wheat fields, very tall green grasses. and bodies everywhere. i mean it was-- we drove up and immediately went down into the tall grasses and saw-- started to count and we counted one, two, three and-- i mean the collective sadness of that place was just, it is impossible really to convey. it was a very strange, very upsetting place. >> rose: and you've seen a lot. >> i have. i mean i've been-- i was telling my husband and my friends, you know, i have been-- si have sown cafes moments after they had been suicide bombed. i've been with the military in iraq an afghanistan. i've been in pakistan and suicide bombings. but there was something about this place that really affected me. and i think, you know, part of it was just the expanse of it. i mean it was 13 square miles of pieces of plane and people. part of it was the emptiness and the quietness of it. it was, you know, usually you come upon a disaster of those proportions and you think okay, there's going to be police. there's going to be police tape there are going to be rescue vehicles. and you know there were some-- there were some rescue workers kind of milling around. >> rose: but nobody was supervising. >> no. no one was in charge. no one was going through those fields taking photographs, measuring things, there was nobody is so it was a handful of journalists. and there really weren't many people left in eastern ukraine at that point. and these people, you know. >> rose: an their possessions, purses, children's stuff. >> and many possessions. so that was the other thing that was difficult to absorb which was that, you know, they were all in these tall grasses. you couldn't see them from the road. you literally had to walk through the grasses and sort of come upon them. and the field was scattered with this very strange a sourcement of things. there were peacocks. there were two parrots. there was a whole crate of chickens with brown feathers there were feathers everywhere from the chickens from the crate there were people's suitcases with belongings had just spilled out on to the grass, bathing suits, guide books, oil of olay face lotion. teva shoes. you felt like these people were so close to being alive, you know, that these people had, you know, you saw their little water bottles that the plane had given them and the plane blankets. and you just felt like you could see them and hear them having those conversations with their kids, with their spouses, you know, minutes before this had happened. it just felt, it felt unbelievable, you know, it felt like it was impossible that it had happened. >> rose: and what do we know now from the investigation as to whose's responsible? >> so the americans feel quite certain that the missile was a surface-to-air missile and that it was shot from the area of eastern ukraine. the americans feel pretty certain that the plane was shot down by rebels. the russians dispute that. though if you look closely at president putin's statement immediately after it was a bit of a nondenial denial. he essentially said, you know, this happened because ukraine restarted military operations. >> rose: is it possible that russians were operating. >> i think it's possible. i think it's possible. i don't-- the americans don't really, aren't telling us if they know. they're saying that they are sure that people, rebels were trained in russia. but they don't know who actually physically pulled the trigger. >> rose: do they know when it came into eastern ukraine. >> as far as i know, no. there's a lot of speculation about a video that had circulated. i don't know if that is something that you encountered that showed, you know, the alleged buk that is the missile system that the name of the missile system, coming into eastern ukraine. you know, firing into the air. they don't have the scene of it firing and then being taken back into russia. so allegedly it really had only spent ten hours or something like that in eastern ukraine. >> rose: so we have seen these consequences, number one, the west has racheted up because of this the west has racheted up the sanctions. >> that's right. >> rose: secondly we have seen what kind of response from vladimir putin. >> so you know, i think it was a very interesting moment immediately after the crash because he appeared almost frozen. i mean there was this great kind of silence it was like the russians were sort of the deer between the headlights for a couple of days, there was really no response at all. and in fact at the crash site you had a bit of a sense of that. that first morning we were working very quickly in kind of the gray dawn because we were expecting rescue workers were going to come immediately and shut it down. but no one did. you know it was like-- and there were rescue workers gathering on the road but they never came into the fields t was like they were waiting for someone to give an order, for someone to decide what to do. but no one knew what to do. and these people were just lying there. and they just were standing watching it was very strange. i noted it in my notebook because i remember thinking-- . >> rose: so it is a contaminated sight. >> it is. it is possible they were given an order not go in and touch anything because that's what the europeans wanted. but it was very confusing that morning as to what-- why-- . >> rose: they did turn over, did they not, the black boxes. >> they did. >> rose: without being tampered with. >> yes, yes. they did turn over the black included malaysians, very late one night, my gosh it was almost 2:00 in the morning they finally did it. but you know, there were several foreigners. there were three malaysians working at that crash site for the better part of five days and working at the crash site really unmolested. they were with its oace convoy. >> rose: same that the separatists and rebels did not try to stop them. >> correct. so they like many, many western journalists who had come in to cover it would drive that road g to the crash site, look around, take photographs, write things down. and you know t really was only when the ukrainians decided to do some, you know, major military push push right around the area of the crash site two days ago that the dutch delegation was stopped from going in. i mean you know, their investigators had been going in and looking around so there was a narrative that oh, the rebels are blocking but i think was actually much more complicated than that. >> rose: too early to tell whether this will have a consequence with respect to the future of ukraine? >> you know, i think the future of ukraine, i think, you know initially the hope was this will be a turning point because it will be proven that the rebels were the ones that shot the plane down. and no one could possibly back them after you know such a tragedy caused by them. but i think what's happened unfortunately is that the narrative has sort of con guiled in a way in eastern ukraine that has, in fact, the ukrainians shooting down the plane. that's what people there believe. people there-- . >> rose: in eastern ukraine. >> in eastern ukraine. >> rose: that the government shot it down. >> correct. >> rose: because they are opposed to the government and they don't trust the government. >> that is correct. there have been many, there had been several ukrainian bombings in the area so in fact when we first started talking to the villagers they said when we heard this terrible thing falling from the sky we thought it was the ukrainian government planes coming to bomb. that's what we thought it was. so there is a great hostility to kiev and the central government out there and it sort of, people see what they want to see based on what their political leafs-- beliefs are. >> rose: how strong would they be without russian support. >> i don't think they would have much of a chance at all. i think they would collapse almost immediately. you see the persons have accused the russians of giving the rebels a lot of tanks, heavy armour, equipment, weapons. and you see that sloshing all around out there. i mean we drove days and days and days. we spent five, ten hours in the car. we drove all of those roads and we saw many, many tanks. many, many armour personnel carriers. you see the equipment out there. so certainly it's coming. >> stephen: . >> rose: so what are the temperatures like? >> that's a great question. you know, the tragic moment of the plane crash was that you know everyone wanted to know who did this. you know who were the-- who was-- who were the people who pulled the trigger. they must have been monsters. for the most part, i've spent now the better part of two months driving around on those roads an living in those areas. these people are indigenous people who are often coal minors, clerks in various departmentses, they're drivers of buses, they're kind of just people living there who feel threatened that the ukrainian government is bringing tanks and planes to take, you know, to suppress the rebellion. and you know, for the most part they are impoverished. for the most part their pants are tied together with pieces of string. they have one cow. they have very old rifles. many took pains to point out to us you know to show us look at where my gun was made. look at the stamp right here and it would be 1945, 1952. you know, very old pieces of equipment. so the narrative that's formed out there, that the ukrainian government was the one that shot done the plane. to people out there it makes sense because they see these rebels and they think these guys, they can barely, they done even have enough money to eat, never mind have a fancy piece of equipment. >> rose: they want to belong to russia or they want ukraine simply to be connected to russia or they want -- >> you know. >> rose: including the leadership, these sort of gruff guys that we've seen interviewed. >> i mean the leadership is kind of sort of relatively nasty lot. they're mostly moskowvites. they are kind of high on the idea that they are leading this kind of rebel yen and it's their war. and you know, they have a very extreme nationalist views. but i would say for the most part the rank and file, i think they're confused about what they want. i don't think that they-- for the most part people don't want ukraine to be part of russia. you know, they don't want-- they have some vague idea about well, we should just be on our own. which is obviously not sustainable. but i think that they-- . >> rose: they want to be partitioned or something. >> they want to be able to make their own decisions about who they elect and they-- but you know-- . >> rose: would they speak ukrainian or russian. >> definitely russian speaking. they're culturally russian and speak russia as their man language. many don't even understand ukrainian. they feel alienated by what they saw in my dawn in the revolution in the west. they feel that that had nothing to do with them. it deposed a lead their was in fact from their part of the country. and they feel they just feel that they don't, it's alien to them. and now they have a government coming into, they always say they're coming to us. they're coming to our land. they're shooting at us. they're shooting these missiles at us. we're trying to defend ourselves. >> rose: dow believe an other correspondent people from "the new york times" who are closer to putin, cover putin believe that the sanctions will have an impact? >> i think that the sanctions aren't unimportant. i think initially pokle were laughing them off as ah, the russians don't care about this at all. i think that they do. and i think that thinking people in russia are very, very worried about them. >> rose: an rich people. >> and rich peoplement and rich people in russia are important. but i think that putin himself is going back to the angela merkel quote, you know s in his own world s in another world. he's not, it's unclear to me at what, what reality he's operating in. >> rose: perhaps russian intel against, putin had nothing to do with it and this is what happens when people get out of control with bad weapons. >> yeah, that's very-- that's probably the most likely scenario. i think for that reason it is just an extremely dangerous situation. and it's not clear to me, it's not clear to me what the future is for it i mean this time i spent in eastern ukraine, you know, the people are enraged and very bitter toward kiev and the government, the central government. i mean that war is awful. those ground missiles that they shoot from are exprepare-- extremely imprecise. they're shooting at each other with these soviet era rockets that land in this vast area and end up killing a lot of civilians. >> rose: from the last century, wasn't it. >> it was. i mean they're dropping dumb bombs, big hunks of steel that explode. it's like world war ii basically. you know, the wind blows and they hit a house instead of the rebel base. that seems to be what happened-- it's not clear to me how the ukrainian government is going to pick up the pieces of this. even if they managed to sort of subdue the area and kick the rebels out. >> rose: and with an economy in bad shape and needing help from the west as well. >> that's right. >> rose: thank you, great to see you. >> great to see you too. >> rose: back in a moment, stay with us. >> el yazami is here president of the morocco council for human rights, he said human rights have improved in recent years but there is still a long way to go. i am pleased to have him here at this table for the first time, welcome. >> thanks a lot, mr. rose. tell me about you first before we talk about human rights in morocco. how many years were you in prison. >> i was exiled. i was sentenced to life imprisonment. >> rose: to life in i prison. >> human-- . >> rose: what year was that. >> i was sentenced in 1977. my brother also was sentenced. we were young. we went to democracy human rights in morocco. we had difficult times. and we had lots of human rights relations. so i been sentenced and i lived left morocco and lived in france more than 30 years. >> rose: when did you come back to morocco. >> in 2004. i had been asked to be a member of the moroccan third commission because one of the achievements in my country, what we did in morocco was to launch in 2004 moroccan commission which worked on human rights relations which gave reparation to the former victims, which give them, you know, to talk, which permit them to talk on tv, to give their testimonies. and also you know, we had reports with lots of recommendations to guarantee that nonrepetition of this human rights relations. >> rose: was it based on its model that we saw in south africa the truth and reconciliation. >> it was similar and different, you know. but it was really, it's the only truth commission in the islamic world, before i was in tunesia because they launched the truth commission in tunesia but until now the moroccan experience is the only one in the islamic world, and the fifth one in africa. >> rose: and what do you hope to accomplish? >> you know, i think that the change in our region, you know, when you see lib ya, iraq now, egypt, yemen, syria, you know, the change in our region i think on how to reform democratic and peaceful way. we have to accomplish in the arab world in some decades what you in the united states accomplished in five, six centuries. >> rose: yes. >> the process of reform is, you know, quite complex so we want a democratic, plurallistic and peaceful society. we are trying to reform in morocco. it's quite difficult but we are trying. we begin before the arab spring we begin with this truth commission. we begin ten years before with the reform of the family code, giving women more rights because one of the challenges in the arab and islamic challenges is equality between men and women. you know we have still lots of problems in this. >> rose: where are they making progress on that? >> you know, i think that we are noticing in our society mainly in country like morocco, tunesia, lebanon also, some silence revolutions. we are now urban, young, connected societies. 51% of moroccans are under 25 years. 55% of moroccans are living now in cities. we are about 7 million moroccans on the internet. so you have to give jobs to this young population. and the-- . >> rose: the percentage of unemployment is. >> as you know, we have t to-- each year we have 180,000 new moroccans asking for jobs. so we have to give them jobs. moroccans, i think, are asking for democracy and rights. you have more than 50,000 engineers, we have a vibrant civil society and people are asking now, just thought. >> "the new york times" said this after the arab spring said king mohammed offered constitutional reforms that guaranteed more social equality and attention to human rights. but those changes are once again cosmetic des pite urges by many to make swift changes. real democratization is the only change that will serve the monarchy in the long run. >> i think that, you know, you know it's quite true. we won't have time to-- we have 60 3r0 visions on human rights. we have now to draft the laws, implement this constitution. and we need i think partnership with countries like the united states, europe. we are the only country to have an advanced statute with the european union. we are an open country. but we need to work harder. we need to work, you know. i don't say that morocco is a paradise for human rights. but the difference maybe with other arab countries, we are doing our work, homework, we are doing it peace three-- peacefully. maybe sometimes slowly t too slowly in my point of view it i addressed the parliament last week and i said that we have to work faster. >> rose: and what was the response? >> i think that the decision and-- will-- we will have two bill of laws and two on equality between men and women. but we need also to work harder on some vulnerable groups, you know. >> rose: like children. >> like children like handicapped persons. they are about 10% in our society, like in all societies in the world. and there is no law for the handicapped people to guarantee their rights. >> rose: what is the difference in the you can ting-- new king and the former king, his father. >> you know, morocco is the only country which was not osoman occupation. we were-- ottoman occupation. >> we were one of the only countries to be under-- occupation swrechlts monarchy more than 13 years. so the difference maybe is that we are the only arab country which didn't notice under the former king and his majesty, the kind of socialism. we are a free market economy from our independence today. we were and we are a plurallistic country with-- and arabs living peacefully. we are the only a-- arab country which with krins a jewish-- in our constitution will you notice that we recognize that we are arabs, per pers, jewish, africans, so i think that this continuity in our political history is a fact, you know. the difference maybe between the former king and the king now is that the former king has to face power after the independence with the strong left and huge struggle for power. now i think that we have a young king, really committed to reforms. committed to women equality and also committed to moderate islam which is a huge challenge also now in africa and its arab world. >> there was this recent book that i read a review of. i think and you help me with the pronunciation. -- >> yes, the cousin. king. >> the cousin, yeah. what did you think of that book? >> you know, i think that it is his personal point of view. i do think that he doesn't answer the question how to reform the arab world. how to reform peacefully. how to guarantee the difference of points of view. you know, secular persons in our societies and islamists. you have, you know, people from different point of view. we k you know, launch civil wars. we can launch civil wars. but the question is how to reform peacefully with the social and economic challenges,. >> rose: whats is the relationship today between the united states and morocco. >> i think that we have close relationship. they know they are-- that they are working together reforms in these region, peacefully. i think that also the necessary know that morocco is working hard. they are also sometimes, you know, asking us to do more but i think it's weird to do more. i think that we have to more economic partnerships. >> rose: with the united states. >> yeah, we need more-- . >> rose: for the global market. >> we need more investments. we need also partnership in some areas, you know, in human rights. for instance, i think that partnership on the judiciary can be-- . >> rose: if its rule of law is so very important. >> i know, you can't do economy without independence judiciary. you can't have your rights, you know, without an independent judiciary. and i think the american system can help us a lot. >> by trade, by investment, by -- >> and by training. >> by training and by, you know, agreements on training, for instance, for judges. >> but i'm a bit confused when you say that the people are demanding, you know, a democracy. i assume you are including by that a constitutional monarchy as part of a democratic process? >> you have lots of monarchies in democratic societies. >> rose: like spain. >> in spain, in norway, you know, in moroccan constitution now the only source of laws is the parliament, you know. in the former constitution, the king can, you know, draft laws. he can't no more do it, you know. so you have an islamic political party, ruling the country. and the king is, you know, is you know accepting the fact, we had real, fair elections more than 3,000 observers from its national democratic constitution, the national republican constitution, from the united states. so you have, you know, i don't want to talk about the other countries. but you can have the iraqian or the syrian yeah, you know, to advance, by killing each other. >> rose: yes. >> we have chosen the other way, to have elections, to have reforms. and you know, with a monarchy, political and independent. >> rose: is part of the reason you are here, not necessarily at this table but part of the reason you are here is to give a different side of the face of morocco. >> no, because we are preparing the second international world forum on human rights. brazil organized last december the first one. and we are hosting the second one next november. so i have been there to meet people from the international human rights, the american human rights, to invite them. i was also because we have lots of-- we have lots of relationships with the international mechanism of the united nations on human rights, you know, so i met people at the united nations. >> most people say to me who have been victims of human rights violations, that the thing thatses that's most important is to know that someone knows you're there. is that correct? >> you know, we at our national council of human rights we have received during the last year more than 40,000 letters of complaints of our citizens. the majority of these letters are, have no link with our powers, but it means that moroccans think that human rights are important. that there is an institution which can, you know, talk about them, try to look for redress for them. try to help them. and i think it's quite important, to know that at the international level but also in your country-- your country you can count on some persons, some institutions. >> rose: thank you for coming. >> thanks a lot. >> rose: a pleasure to have you here. >> thank as lots. >> rose: for more about this program and earlier episodes visit us on-line@pbs.org and charlie rose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org >> pounding for charlie rose have been provided for the coca-cola company supporting this program since 2002. american express, and charles schwreport" with tyler susie gharib. firing on all cylinders, the economy bounced back last quarter growing at a 4% annual rate, but how long will the good times last? >> rates debate. it's heating up but did the federal reserve offer any hint as to when and by how much it might start hiking. super size decision, a legal finding at the national relations board triggers a fire storm between big business and big labor and at the center of it all, mcdonalds that and more tonight for "nightly business report" for wednesday, july 30th. and good evening, everyone. welcome. i'm tyler mathisen. >> i'm sue herrera, filling in tonight for susie gharib. the day started out with a pleasant
given them and the plane blankets and you just felt like you could see them and hear them having those conversations with their kids, with their spouses. you know, minutes before this had happened. it just felt, it felt unbelievable, you know, it felt like it was impossible that it had happened krz we conclude this evening with driss el yazami, the head of a national human rights council in morocco. >> i think that the challenge in our region, you know, when you see what is in libya, iraq now, egypt,iamen, syria, you know, the challenge in our region, i think, how to reform democratic and peaceful way. we have to accomplish in the arab world in some decades what you in the united states accomplished in five, six centuries. krz rondermer, sabrina tavernise and driss el yazami, when we continue. funding for charlie rose is provided by the following: >> there's a saying around here: you stand behind what you say. around here, we don't make excuses, we make commitments. and when you can't live up to them, you own up and make it right. some people think the kind of accountability that thrives on so many streets in this country has gone missing in the places where it's needed most. but i know you'll still find it, when you know where to look. >> rose: additional funding provided by: >> and by bloomberg. a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. krz we continue our coverage of the conflict in gaza, earlier today israel announced a four hour humanitarian cease-fire, that cease-fire has passed punctuated in any case from attacks on both sides, israel strikes on a busy market killed at least 15 and injured 150 others. last note reports suggested israeli shells hit a united nations school in gaza quilling at least 20. joining me is rondermer israel's ambassador to the united states. i'm pleased to have him back on this program. welcome back. >> great to be with you, charlie. >> rose: tell me what is happening at this moment in terms of your communication with your government on the ground in gaza. >> look, we're trying to get to a sustainable cease-fire that will essentially achieve three goals. the first is bring an end to these rocket attacks. we've had nearly 3,000 rockets that have been fired at israel, and were two-thirds of our country, equivalent to about 200 million americans who have had to go into bomb shelters for the last three weeks multiple times a day. the secosthing we want to do is take care of these tunnels. the tunnels that have been dug from gaza into israel where terrorists infiltrate, pop out the israeli side, try to kill civilian, soldiers, we lost a number of soldiers from the tunnel attacks. we found dozens of them and were in the process of destroying them as we speak, so we want to make sure during a cease-fire, after a cease-fire, we need to destroy those tunnels. and the third thing we want to do is we want to make sure that a gaza doesn't simply, that hamas doesn't rearm itself after. because we've now had three rounds of confrontation with hamas. the first was in 2008. the end of 2008. then we had pillar of defense in november 2012. this is the third time. and we have to make sure we don't have a fourth one in a year, a year and a half so that means we need to have an effective mechanism to prevent hamas from just rearming, rebuilding all those tunnels, rebuilding those rockets. and those are the discussions we're having now. how do you effect not only an immediate cease-fire but a sustainable cease-fire. >> those will argue with you who will argue that if you wipe out hamas what will come after them will be worse than hamas. >> listen, i suppose you could always make that argument. i read a book once, i think was the rise and fall of the third reich about the british ambassador at the time to ger men-- germany telling his home office in london that they should take it easy with hitler because the next guy will be worse. you know, hamas is a genocidal terror organization. they call for not just the destruction of israel, would be bad enough, and they not only are firing thousands of rockets and have suicide bombers and these tunnels and every single ago of terror you can think of, they also call for the murder of jews worldwide. these are people who were dancing on 9/11 when thousands of americans were dead and the leader of hamas, mr. hani who is right now hidden somewhere in gaza actually condemned the united states for killing osama bin laden it is hard to imagine swb worse than hamas. >> rose: so you're trying to wipe out the hamas leadership today. and if so does that mean khaled mashal. >> we have not-- our directive and the objective of this operation is sustained peace and quiet for israel. israel has had to take action against this terror organization that, by the way, is not just recognized as a terror organization in the united states. it's also recognized in the eu, australia and canada, including in egypt it considered to be a terror organization. so we've taken certain measures over the years in order to protect our people. and will continue to do what's necessary to protect our people. but the goal of our operation is not to reconquer gaza, not fully dismantle hamas there, that's a goal that militarily could be achievable. but that's not the goal of the operation. it's to restore sustained quiet, hopefully we want to do that diplomatically if we can, if not militarily. >> but the question is what do you think is being to be necessary. because also those who argue the only way you can ever do that is simply to occupy gaza and that's the last thing you want to do. >> look, after, let's take the last operation in 2012 pillar of defense. most people at the time were opposed to a cease-fire because they were afraid we were going to be in another round very soon. it turns out that that cease-fire held more or less for about a year and a half. in 2013 was the quietest year in israel. it didn't mean there were no rockets am we had 74 rockets and mortars fired at israel over the course of 2013. that ended up being the quietest period for a decade. the hope is after this round that hamas will be deterred from taking action, both because we have degraded its capabilities, and also because we have damaged its intention of attacking us knowing that they're to the going to get away with attacks us with impunity that they will pay a heavy price. the additional hope is that right now maybe because of the changing government in egypt that we might be able to put in place mechanisms that will make it exceedingly difficult for hamas to rearm and to rebuild its arsenal in gaza. if that happens you'll have sustained quiet for a much longer time period. >> "the washington post" today lead story gaza war hugely popular in israel. public support is broad and growing. also finds high approval of netanyahu's leadership. when i talk to the people in hamas they say the same thing about the people in gaza supporting what hamas is doing. >> well, that's not true. because hamas just has to execute people in gaza who were challenging their rule. i don't know if it has been widely reported in the press. but the people in gasa, i think, there is a lot of anecdotal evidence. i don't know how they conduct polls in gaza that they are fed up with hamas because they know they are not achieving anything. i'm sure there are many people in gaza, obviously. they're not great designists and when are you foyting a war and being hit in a war, no one is going look towards israel and say they support israel. i think they understand that hamas is taking them down the wrong path. the difference, charlie s that the people of gaza can't speak out any more than the people of iran who dislike their regime can go out and speak out. because these are brutal regimes that crush all descent. hamas executed people who spoke against them because they don't want a situation where they're facing the rage of the people of gaza. >> rose: how far will israel go to wipe out hamas? >> how far are you willing to go to achieve your objective? >> well, we will have to go as far as we have to go. you hope you don't have to go all the way. and reconquering the-- conquering the whole area to wipe them out. i want to remind you 12 years ago, in operation defensive shield that was an operation that was launched during the second anti-fatah after one of the worst periods of terror attacks in israeling we had one month in march of 200023 where we lost hundreds of israelies to suicide bombings including that pass over satter bombing and we launched a military operation in the west bank, and we went into all these palestinian areas. and we dismantled the terror infrastructure that existed in the west bank at the time. it took a long time. it took a couple of years. we built a security fence in terrorism emanating from the west bank. in the case of a we have not done such a broad and sweeping operation. and that is not the current goal of the current operation. but who knows? hamas may think that they are just going to keep firing, not have a cease-fire, continue to make their people pay this horrific price, and we might have to take further action. we hope that that doesn't action. we hope we can find a cease-fire that can be turned into a sustainable cease-fire. >> rose: what are you hearing from the united nations? because of what was happening in the last 24 hours to that united nations facility? >> well, look, it's important also to get the facts straight. because the second something happens, you know, you see these pictures there is a rush to judgement on israel. we had a case two days ago, where there were reports that there was an attack on a hospital in gaza and an attack on a refugee camp where a number of children were killed. and of course most reports say that israel was responsible. some of the more fair-minded people said well, we don't know the facts yet. it has become a "he said, she said" situation. and then the truth was very clear yesterday. where we got a radar photo that showed that that hospital and that refugee camp, i actually have it here. i don't know if you can see it on the screen here, but you can see rit here. >> rose: i can see,. >> so we know right here we had a rocket fired from inside gaza, these rockets were actually fired by palestinian islamic jihad. they fired a salvo of four rockets of one of them went into the sea. one of them hit the hospital. one of them hit the refugee camp. and one of them went to-- and was intercepted by the iron dome. so here was a case where everyone rushed to judgement against israel, said how could israel attack a hospital. how could israel attack kids playing on a playground. and it turned out that that was completely false. those were rockets that were fired by islamic jihad in gaza at israel that fell short b 10% of the 2,000 plus rockets fired at israel, nearly 3,000 locates, i should say, fall within gaza. now the case of the u.n. schools that you mentioned, i don't know if we have investigated exactly what happened in the school. but we don't target u.n. schools. what we are very concerned about is that hamas has used u.n. schools, as storage depots for their weapons. we have had now three schools that have rockets have been found there. now unra is this organization, you know, the initials u-n-r-w-a, supposed to be the relief workers it is not supposed to be a rocket warehouse. and that is what you have with the u.n. schools. we now may have found that a tunnel. >> rose: how large-- some are not. >> well, i'm not saying that they all are but how can you have u.n. schools used to score rockets that sun acceptable. people should be outraged about this. now we may have a considered coulding to reports just before i walked in here, we may have had a tunnel that came from a u.n. medical clinic, one of these tunnels that are used to attack israel, kill our civilians, it actually may have originated in the u.n. medical clinic. and in trying to actually destroy that tunnel, a number of our soldiers were killed because it was booby trapped. the world has got to speak out against the use of human shields. we are dealing with an enemy, charlie, that both fires on our civilians, people understand that. but they are using hospital, schools and mosques in a way that is unacceptable. >> rose: and the world is asking, and many people who are friends of israel are asking, how far is it necessary to go to achieve the objective that you think are important. and do we have to have this level of violence against the people of gaza in order to achieve the objective you said, a period of quiet. >> look, we're not targeting any civilians. >> rose: whether you target them or not, ron, they're being hit. you know you had more than a thousand people die, many of them, most of them are civilians and many of them are children. >> first of all, i don't think most of them are civilians and i wouldn't rush to judgement on that hundreds of hamas fighters have been killed. time after time these statistics come out, they're from a principle health ministry run by hamas and they say everybody is a civilian, wait, hold your horses. will you see that, mind you, you invite me back on your show hopefully after it is all said and done and will you see at least 50% of these people are hamas fighters. but understand, we are under a stack-- attack. the way israel should be judged by the international community is not by some standard of perfection. the international community every serious responsible country has to act. how would we act when faced with aye similar threat. how would we act when thousands of rockets are being fired. how we ago if our military is going in, house-to-house and become fired upon. how would we act if you had an enemy that was using human shields and using hospitals, mosques and schools to store weapons. are we just going hold back and fire rock epts at us or are we going to go and try to root this out. in the most cautious way, no military in history has used such caution and made such an effort to get the innocence of the other side out of harm away. that is a fact. >> rose: where are they going to go to get out of harm away. because the time between the notice and how they can get people together and in some cases has not been that long. >> in most cases it's been pretty long. usually we give them a couple of days to get out of major areas where we know there is going to be ground forces coming in. in some of the worst battles, we told them 48 hours before to get out. and we tell them not only to get out of point a but where to go to point b that they won't be hit. they have places to go. unfortunately, the whole u.n. system has been penetrated by hamas. this is a major problem. how do you not have a safe haven, a u.n. school or a hospital or a mosque, how can you not have places in gaza. and the reason is, is because these people, hamas, will do anything. and they have no moral inhibitions whatsoever. they don't play by any set of rules. that is what israel is dealing with. >> rose: are there any circumstances in which you would deal with hamas directly? what would they have to do? give me one through ten that they would have to do. >> i will give you one through three. >> rose: okay. >> they have to recognize israel's right to exist. they have to abandon terrorism and accept previous agreements. those are the conditions not made by israel but by the international community to be a legitimate interlock eter with israel am we will not deal with people who call for their destruction what do we negotiate w the terms of our destruction. it's unacceptable. >> rose: i realize are you not going negotiate the terms of why destruction. so tell me, if they, in fact, as you know, i did an interview with the political leader of hamas. and i thought i heard you criticize me because i kept pursuing the question of what are you prepared to do and do you trek israel's right to exist. suppose they would come to that conclusion, without that change things? >> of course. then are you in a different reality. that's what happened when the plo crossed the rubicon and decided to recognize israel's right to exist and to abandon terrorism. unfortunately, they didn't abide by that commitment and yassir arafat was saying one thing in the west an something else to his own people and also waged war. mahmoud abbas has been different in that he has not partaken in violence but palestinian society, charlie, is basically split in two. on the one hand you have half of the political leadership of the palestinians who are committed to israel's destruction openly. and the other half 6 the palestinian society is not really prepared to confront the first half. that's the problem. they're not committed to violence. and it's good that president abbas has not been committed to violence. we don't take that for granted. but for hamas to actually be a peace partner, they have to accept israel's right to exist. they don't. and they say they never will. that's what we're dealing with. we're dealing with this terror organization that wants to destroy it and will just arm itself in order to achieve that goal. >> rose: looking at the negotiations that are taking place, that have taken place, john kerry was in paris negotiating with the foreign minister of qatar and foreign minister of turkey. david ignatius who you know was critical for attempting to negotiate with qatar instead of egypt and fatah, with the palestinian authority. do you agree with david ignatius on that? or do you think you should talk to somebody who talks to hamas. >> look, there is an issue in actually achieving the cease-fire because the relationship between the egyptian government and hamas is not the same that it was. but i can tell you, charlie, neither turkey or qatar are positive influences in our region. and everyone should know the egyptian proposal, the cease-fire proposal is the only guil in town. and i think they should be pushed, hamas, to accepting that cease-fire. they're obviously under enormous political pressure, economic pressure and now military pressure from israel. but there is only one route and that is to accept the egyptian proposals. and then to try to find a way to moverward so that we don't repeat these operations every year and a half, every couple of years. >> rose: i'm sure you've asked yourself this, and certainly israeli military leadership and political leadership has asked it. why under the barack-- barrage that are being rained down upon them and what is happening in the gaza, why do you think they're continuing? >> well, other than the general rule that they want to attack jews and they want to destroy israel, specifically now i think it's because they're under enormous pressure. they're politically isolated. they have no friends in the region. the change in egypt i think has hurt them considerably because the he gyp-s have knocked out about 90% of the tunnels. the tunnels used between egypt and gaza to smuggle weapons and smuggle goods. they were kicked out of syria because of the battles that were taking place there. so their friends in the region are basically qatar, the turks and iranians, that's it they're under enormous economic pressures because once those tunnels were destroyed, that was a source of income for hamas. and they're not getting income from the tunnels in the way they did before. they're also not getting income from the palestinian authority. we collect tax revenues for the pa. we transfer them over to the pa every month. the pa is not transfering to hamas to pay their salaries. so they are under enormous political and economic pressures. and what they want to do is break out of this isolation, economic pressure. >> rose: should the pa be transferred it over to hamas to pay the civil servants. >> no. >> rose: why. >> why do we want to strengthen a terror organization. what's the point. i mean they're on life-support. they want to fire rockets at israel to get out of their problem. why should we give them more energy? why dow want to recharge a battery which is only for destruction? that's what they want to do. and that's why once we get a cease-fire proposal, and hopefully they will agree to it because they are paying a very heavy price, we have to make sure that it's sustainable by having mechanisms in place that prevent them from rearming in the future. here's the interesting thing, charlie. the egyptian government may make it very difficult now because of their relationship to hamas to actually get to a cease-fire. but unlike the morsi government, the previous muslim brotherhood government in egypt t may be much easier to make a cease-fire sustainable. because now you have a partner in egypt that doesn't want to see hamas rearm. and we don't want to see hamas rearm in israel. and that makes it more likely that we can have a sustainable cease-fire. >> rose: well, not only that, in order to somehow get to some equilibrium here, the egyptians would have to agree to open the borders again. >> well, israel has not had a problem with open borders between egypt and gaz az. >> rose: egypt does. >> look, that's another question. and i'm sure that egypt will make the decisions that they think are in egypt's interest but i can tell you from israel's point of view, we don't have a problem with goods coming into gaza. we actually put goods into gaza that come in through israel and transit points that we have and also during the war it's important to note we're putting a lot of food and medicine in every single day, even while they're firing rockets at our civilians, killing our soldiers, supplies are constantly going into gaza, we don't have a problem with those passages being hopefully manned by the pa which would be a palestinian authority which would be much better than hamas. goods going in. our problem is with weapon smuggling going in and also dual use items like concrete, iron, chemicals. now you remember, charlie, two years ago, circumstances months ago even, a year ago am people mr. saying look, why are you preventing these concretes. and iron, these heartless israelies that are not allowing the people of gaza to build a better future. well, the problem that we have, charlie, is they were using the concrete to build this labyrinth subterranean fortress of these tunnels under nooelt gaza. they were using iron to manufacture their rockets to be fired at israel. that's the problem we have. we have to have a mechanism in place that makes sure that goods are going to build a better future for the people of gaza and not to fuel hamas's war machine. that is what we have to discuss once we get to a cease-fire. >> rose: why isn't your objective simply to destroy hamas. why don't you go all the way and say we're going to wipe them out. >> as i said people in israel advocate that but that's not the objective rses tell me that is not the-- why that is not the objective. i realize the foreign minister makes that point. so why isn't it the objective. >> first of all it is an objective that is militarily achievable. but the reason is everything comes with a price. israel can go do that. it would be a very big price for our soldiers. it wob a huge price for palestinian civilians, considering what hamas is and how they embed themselves in the civilian population. and frankly, charlie, hamas is not the only enemy that israel faces. prime minister of israel who has the weight of the world on his shoulders and is responsible for the security and survival of israel has to look at the entire region and all the threats facing israel, not just in one front. we have many, many issues we have to deal with. we have hezbollah in the north, they have 100,000 rockets. we have basically the disintegration of many of the states in the region and security problems that arise from that. the worst security danger for israel is iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. so the prime minister has a very full plate of security threats. and it's not just one problem g in there and sol of this one problem. because there are other issues that the prime minister has to deal with. and he has to make a decision and a calculation what is the most important thing for israel's security at any specific time. and that's why he outlined specifically the goal, not to dismantle all of hamas's infrastructure, not to reconquer gaza but to restore peace and quiet for the people of israel. that's through deterrents, not through conquering gaza. >> rose: thank you so much for joining us. >> thank you. >> rose: rondermer is the ambassador from israel to the united states. he was recently pro pile-- profiled in "the new york times" and he was described in that article as bebe's brain, that and more. back in a moment, stay with us. is. >> sabrina tavernise has been covering ukraine for "the new york times". she was one of the first journalists to reach the crash site of malaysian air 17. two weeks ago on this program you saw her first report from the scene courtesy of cbs news. this week she's able to join us for a longer discussion. and i'm pleased to have her here. let me just go back to the crash scene though. i mean how soon did you get there? >> so we got there at around 8:00 p.m. which was a couple of hours after the plane had been shot out of the sky it it was coming close to getting dark. there were a few sort of rag tag firefighters putting out what was actually a quite large fire in the fuselage area of the plane. i had come from amsterdam and it had only made it an hour or so so it was full of fuel it was burning hotly and largely. and but really other than the firefighters, there weren't really many people out there. there were some rebels kind of milling around. there were some villagers. the plane had landed, the hulk, the biggest part had landed in between these two little villages where, people had cows and chickens an were very rural agricultural peasants. and we got out of the car. and looked around. and it was the most-- really incomprehensible contrast, i think i had ever seen in my life. there were these incredibly beautiful expanses of farmland, sun flower fields, wheat fields, very tall green grasses. and bodies everywhere. i mean it was-- we drove up and immediately went down into the tall grasses and saw-- started to count and we counted one, two, three and-- i mean the collective sadness of that place was just, it is impossible really to convey. it was a very strange, very upsetting place. >> rose: and you've seen a lot. >> i have. i mean i've been-- i was telling my husband and my friends, you know, i have been-- si have sown cafes moments after they had been suicide bombed. i've been with the military in iraq an afghanistan. i've been in pakistan and suicide bombings. but there was something about this place that really affected me. and i think, you know, part of it was just the expanse of it. i mean it was 13 square miles of pieces of plane and people. part of it was the emptiness and the quietness of it. it was, you know, usually you come upon a disaster of those proportions and you think okay, there's going to be police. there's going to be police tape there are going to be rescue vehicles. and you know there were some-- there were some rescue workers kind of milling around. >> rose: but nobody was supervising. >> no. no one was in charge. no one was going through those fields taking photographs, measuring things, there was nobody is so it was a handful of journalists. and there really weren't many people left in eastern ukraine at that point. and these people, you know. >> rose: an their possessions, purses, children's stuff. >> and many possessions. so that was the other thing that was difficult to absorb which was that, you know, they were all in these tall grasses. you couldn't see them from the road. you literally had to walk through the grasses and sort of come upon them. and the field was scattered with this very strange a sourcement of things. there were peacocks. there were two parrots. there was a whole crate of chickens with brown feathers there were feathers everywhere from the chickens from the crate there were people's suitcases with belongings had just spilled out on to the grass, bathing suits, guide books, oil of olay face lotion. teva shoes. you felt like these people were so close to being alive, you know, that these people had, you know, you saw their little water bottles that the plane had given them and the plane blankets. and you just felt like you could see them and hear them having those conversations with their kids, with their spouses, you know, minutes before this had happened. it just felt, it felt unbelievable, you know, it felt like it was impossible that it had happened. >> rose: and what do we know now from the investigation as to whose's responsible? >> so the americans feel quite certain that the missile was a surface-to-air missile and that it was shot from the area of eastern ukraine. the americans feel pretty certain that the plane was shot down by rebels. the russians dispute that. though if you look closely at president putin's statement immediately after it was a bit of a nondenial denial. he essentially said, you know, this happened because ukraine restarted military operations. >> rose: is it possible that russians were operating. >> i think it's possible. i think it's possible. i don't-- the americans don't really, aren't telling us if they know. they're saying that they are sure that people, rebels were trained in russia. but they don't know who actually physically pulled the trigger. >> rose: do they know when it came into eastern ukraine. >> as far as i know, no. there's a lot of speculation about a video that had circulated. i don't know if that is something that you encountered that showed, you know, the alleged buk that is the missile system that the name of the missile system, coming into eastern ukraine. you know, firing into the air. they don't have the scene of it firing and then being taken back into russia. so allegedly it really had only spent ten hours or something like that in eastern ukraine. >> rose: so we have seen these consequences, number one, the west has racheted up because of this the west has racheted up the sanctions. >> that's right. >> rose: secondly we have seen what kind of response from vladimir putin. >> so you know, i think it was a very interesting moment immediately after the crash because he appeared almost frozen. i mean there was this great kind of silence it was like the russians were sort of the deer between the headlights for a couple of days, there was really no response at all. and in fact at the crash site you had a bit of a sense of that. that first morning we were working very quickly in kind of the gray dawn because we were expecting rescue workers were going to come immediately and shut it down. but no one did. you know it was like-- and there were rescue workers gathering on the road but they never came into the fields t was like they were waiting for someone to give an order, for someone to decide what to do. but no one knew what to do. and these people were just lying there. and they just were standing watching it was very strange. i noted it in my notebook because i remember thinking-- . >> rose: so it is a contaminated sight. >> it is. it is possible they were given an order not go in and touch anything because that's what the europeans wanted. but it was very confusing that morning as to what-- why-- . >> rose: they did turn over, did they not, the black boxes. >> they did. >> rose: without being tampered with. >> yes, yes. they did turn over the black included malaysians, very late one night, my gosh it was almost 2:00 in the morning they finally did it. but you know, there were several foreigners. there were three malaysians working at that crash site for the better part of five days and working at the crash site really unmolested. they were with its oace convoy. >> rose: same that the separatists and rebels did not try to stop them. >> correct. so they like many, many western journalists who had come in to cover it would drive that road g to the crash site, look around, take photographs, write things down. and you know t really was only when the ukrainians decided to do some, you know, major military push push right around the area of the crash site two days ago that the dutch delegation was stopped from going in. i mean you know, their investigators had been going in and looking around so there was a narrative that oh, the rebels are blocking but i think was actually much more complicated than that. >> rose: too early to tell whether this will have a consequence with respect to the future of ukraine? >> you know, i think the future of ukraine, i think, you know initially the hope was this will be a turning point because it will be proven that the rebels were the ones that shot the plane down. and no one could possibly back them after you know such a tragedy caused by them. but i think what's happened unfortunately is that the narrative has sort of con guiled in a way in eastern ukraine that has, in fact, the ukrainians shooting down the plane. that's what people there believe. people there-- . >> rose: in eastern ukraine. >> in eastern ukraine. >> rose: that the government shot it down. >> correct. >> rose: because they are opposed to the government and they don't trust the government. >> that is correct. there have been many, there had been several ukrainian bombings in the area so in fact when we first started talking to the villagers they said when we heard this terrible thing falling from the sky we thought it was the ukrainian government planes coming to bomb. that's what we thought it was. so there is a great hostility to kiev and the central government out there and it sort of, people see what they want to see based on what their political leafs-- beliefs are. >> rose: how strong would they be without russian support. >> i don't think they would have much of a chance at all. i think they would collapse almost immediately. you see the persons have accused the russians of giving the rebels a lot of tanks, heavy armour, equipment, weapons. and you see that sloshing all around out there. i mean we drove days and days and days. we spent five, ten hours in the car. we drove all of those roads and we saw many, many tanks. many, many armour personnel carriers. you see the equipment out there. so certainly it's coming. >> stephen: . >> rose: so what are the temperatures like? >> that's a great question. you know, the tragic moment of the plane crash was that you know everyone wanted to know who did this. you know who were the-- who was-- who were the people who pulled the trigger. they must have been monsters. for the most part, i've spent now the better part of two months driving around on those roads an living in those areas. these people are indigenous people who are often coal minors, clerks in various departmentses, they're drivers of buses, they're kind of just people living there who feel threatened that the ukrainian government is bringing tanks and planes to take, you know, to suppress the rebellion. and you know, for the most part they are impoverished. for the most part their pants are tied together with pieces of string. they have one cow. they have very old rifles. many took pains to point out to us you know to show us look at where my gun was made. look at the stamp right here and it would be 1945, 1952. you know, very old pieces of equipment. so the narrative that's formed out there, that the ukrainian government was the one that shot done the plane. to people out there it makes sense because they see these rebels and they think these guys, they can barely, they done even have enough money to eat, never mind have a fancy piece of equipment. >> rose: they want to belong to russia or they want ukraine simply to be connected to russia or they want -- >> you know. >> rose: including the leadership, these sort of gruff guys that we've seen interviewed. >> i mean the leadership is kind of sort of relatively nasty lot. they're mostly moskowvites. they are kind of high on the idea that they are leading this kind of rebel yen and it's their war. and you know, they have a very extreme nationalist views. but i would say for the most part the rank and file, i think they're confused about what they want. i don't think that they-- for the most part people don't want ukraine to be part of russia. you know, they don't want-- they have some vague idea about well, we should just be on our own. which is obviously not sustainable. but i think that they-- . >> rose: they want to be partitioned or something. >> they want to be able to make their own decisions about who they elect and they-- but you know-- . >> rose: would they speak ukrainian or russian. >> definitely russian speaking. they're culturally russian and speak russia as their man language. many don't even understand ukrainian. they feel alienated by what they saw in my dawn in the revolution in the west. they feel that that had nothing to do with them. it deposed a lead their was in fact from their part of the country. and they feel they just feel that they don't, it's alien to them. and now they have a government coming into, they always say they're coming to us. they're coming to our land. they're shooting at us. they're shooting these missiles at us. we're trying to defend ourselves. >> rose: dow believe an other correspondent people from "the new york times" who are closer to putin, cover putin believe that the sanctions will have an impact? >> i think that the sanctions aren't unimportant. i think initially pokle were laughing them off as ah, the russians don't care about this at all. i think that they do. and i think that thinking people in russia are very, very worried about them. >> rose: an rich people. >> and rich peoplement and rich people in russia are important. but i think that putin himself is going back to the angela merkel quote, you know s in his own world s in another world. he's not, it's unclear to me at what, what reality he's operating in. >> rose: perhaps russian intel against, putin had nothing to do with it and this is what happens when people get out of control with bad weapons. >> yeah, that's very-- that's probably the most likely scenario. i think for that reason it is just an extremely dangerous situation. and it's not clear to me, it's not clear to me what the future is for it i mean this time i spent in eastern ukraine, you know, the people are enraged and very bitter toward kiev and the government, the central government. i mean that war is awful. those ground missiles that they shoot from are exprepare-- extremely imprecise. they're shooting at each other with these soviet era rockets that land in this vast area and end up killing a lot of civilians. >> rose: from the last century, wasn't it. >> it was. i mean they're dropping dumb bombs, big hunks of steel that explode. it's like world war ii basically. you know, the wind blows and they hit a house instead of the rebel base. that seems to be what happened-- it's not clear to me how the ukrainian government is going to pick up the pieces of this. even if they managed to sort of subdue the area and kick the rebels out. >> rose: and with an economy in bad shape and needing help from the west as well. >> that's right. >> rose: thank you, great to see you. >> great to see you too. >> rose: back in a moment, stay with us. >> el yazami is here president of the morocco council for human rights, he said human rights have improved in recent years but there is still a long way to go. i am pleased to have him here at this table for the first time, welcome. >> thanks a lot, mr. rose. tell me about you first before we talk about human rights in morocco. how many years were you in prison. >> i was exiled. i was sentenced to life imprisonment. >> rose: to life in i prison. >> human-- . >> rose: what year was that. >> i was sentenced in 1977. my brother also was sentenced. we were young. we went to democracy human rights in morocco. we had difficult times. and we had lots of human rights relations. so i been sentenced and i lived left morocco and lived in france more than 30 years. >> rose: when did you come back to morocco. >> in 2004. i had been asked to be a member of the moroccan third commission because one of the achievements in my country, what we did in morocco was to launch in 2004 moroccan commission which worked on human rights relations which gave reparation to the former victims, which give them, you know, to talk, which permit them to talk on tv, to give their testimonies. and also you know, we had reports with lots of recommendations to guarantee that nonrepetition of this human rights relations. >> rose: was it based on its model that we saw in south africa the truth and reconciliation. >> it was similar and different, you know. but it was really, it's the only truth commission in the islamic world, before i was in tunesia because they launched the truth commission in tunesia but until now the moroccan experience is the only one in the islamic world, and the fifth one in africa. >> rose: and what do you hope to accomplish? >> you know, i think that the change in our region, you know, when you see lib ya, iraq now, egypt, yemen, syria, you know, the change in our region i think on how to reform democratic and peaceful way. we have to accomplish in the arab world in some decades what you in the united states accomplished in five, six centuries. >> rose: yes. >> the process of reform is, you know, quite complex so we want a democratic, plurallistic and peaceful society. we are trying to reform in morocco. it's quite difficult but we are trying. we begin before the arab spring we begin with this truth commission. we begin ten years before with the reform of the family code, giving women more rights because one of the challenges in the arab and islamic challenges is equality between men and women. you know we have still lots of problems in this. >> rose: where are they making progress on that? >> you know, i think that we are noticing in our society mainly in country like morocco, tunesia, lebanon also, some silence revolutions. we are now urban, young, connected societies. 51% of moroccans are under 25 years. 55% of moroccans are living now in cities. we are about 7 million moroccans on the internet. so you have to give jobs to this young population. and the-- . >> rose: the percentage of unemployment is. >> as you know, we have t to-- each year we have 180,000 new moroccans asking for jobs. so we have to give them jobs. moroccans, i think, are asking for democracy and rights. you have more than 50,000 engineers, we have a vibrant civil society and people are asking now, just thought. >> "the new york times" said this after the arab spring said king mohammed offered constitutional reforms that guaranteed more social equality and attention to human rights. but those changes are once again cosmetic des pite urges by many to make swift changes. real democratization is the only change that will serve the monarchy in the long run. >> i think that, you know, you know it's quite true. we won't have time to-- we have 60 3r0 visions on human rights. we have now to draft the laws, implement this constitution. and we need i think partnership with countries like the united states, europe. we are the only country to have an advanced statute with the european union. we are an open country. but we need to work harder. we need to work, you know. i don't say that morocco is a paradise for human rights. but the difference maybe with other arab countries, we are doing our work, homework, we are doing it peace three-- peacefully. maybe sometimes slowly t too slowly in my point of view it i addressed the parliament last week and i said that we have to work faster. >> rose: and what was the response? >> i think that the decision and-- will-- we will have two bill of laws and two on equality between men and women. but we need also to work harder on some vulnerable groups, you know. >> rose: like children. >> like children like handicapped persons. they are about 10% in our society, like in all societies in the world. and there is no law for the handicapped people to guarantee their rights. >> rose: what is the difference in the you can ting-- new king and the former king, his father. >> you know, morocco is the only country which was not osoman occupation. we were-- ottoman occupation. >> we were one of the only countries to be under-- occupation swrechlts monarchy more than 13 years. so the difference maybe is that we are the only arab country which didn't notice under the former king and his majesty, the kind of socialism. we are a free market economy from our independence today. we were and we are a plurallistic country with-- and arabs living peacefully. we are the only a-- arab country which with krins a jewish-- in our constitution will you notice that we recognize that we are arabs, per pers, jewish, africans, so i think that this continuity in our political history is a fact, you know. the difference maybe between the former king and the king now is that the former king has to face power after the independence with the strong left and huge struggle for power. now i think that we have a young king, really committed to reforms. committed to women equality and also committed to moderate islam which is a huge challenge also now in africa and its arab world. >> there was this recent book that i read a review of. i think and you help me with the pronunciation. -- >> yes, the cousin. king. >> the cousin, yeah. what did you think of that book? >> you know, i think that it is his personal point of view. i do think that he doesn't answer the question how to reform the arab world. how to reform peacefully. how to guarantee the difference of points of view. you know, secular persons in our societies and islamists. you have, you know, people from different point of view. we k you know, launch civil wars. we can launch civil wars. but the question is how to reform peacefully with the social and economic challenges,. >> rose: whats is the relationship today between the united states and morocco. >> i think that we have close relationship. they know they are-- that they are working together reforms in these region, peacefully. i think that also the necessary know that morocco is working hard. they are also sometimes, you know, asking us to do more but i think it's weird to do more. i think that we have to more economic partnerships. >> rose: with the united states. >> yeah, we need more-- . >> rose: for the global market. >> we need more investments. we need also partnership in some areas, you know, in human rights. for instance, i think that partnership on the judiciary can be-- . >> rose: if its rule of law is so very important. >> i know, you can't do economy without independence judiciary. you can't have your rights, you know, without an independent judiciary. and i think the american system can help us a lot. >> by trade, by investment, by -- >> and by training. >> by training and by, you know, agreements on training, for instance, for judges. >> but i'm a bit confused when you say that the people are demanding, you know, a democracy. i assume you are including by that a constitutional monarchy as part of a democratic process? >> you have lots of monarchies in democratic societies. >> rose: like spain. >> in spain, in norway, you know, in moroccan constitution now the only source of laws is the parliament, you know. in the former constitution, the king can, you know, draft laws. he can't no more do it, you know. so you have an islamic political party, ruling the country. and the king is, you know, is you know accepting the fact, we had real, fair elections more than 3,000 observers from its national democratic constitution, the national republican constitution, from the united states. so you have, you know, i don't want to talk about the other countries. but you can have the iraqian or the syrian yeah, you know, to advance, by killing each other. >> rose: yes. >> we have chosen the other way, to have elections, to have reforms. and you know, with a monarchy, political and independent. >> rose: is part of the reason you are here, not necessarily at this table but part of the reason you are here is to give a different side of the face of morocco. >> no, because we are preparing the second international world forum on human rights. brazil organized last december the first one. and we are hosting the second one next november. so i have been there to meet people from the international human rights, the american human rights, to invite them. i was also because we have lots of-- we have lots of relationships with the international mechanism of the united nations on human rights, you know, so i met people at the united nations. >> most people say to me who have been victims of human rights violations, that the thing thatses that's most important is to know that someone knows you're there. is that correct? >> you know, we at our national council of human rights we have received during the last year more than 40,000 letters of complaints of our citizens. the majority of these letters are, have no link with our powers, but it means that moroccans think that human rights are important. that there is an institution which can, you know, talk about them, try to look for redress for them. try to help them. and i think it's quite important, to know that at the international level but also in your country-- your country you can count on some persons, some institutions. >> rose: thank you for coming. >> thanks a lot. >> rose: a pleasure to have you here. >> thank as lots. >> rose: for more about this program and earlier episodes visit us on-line@pbs.org and charlie rose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org >> pounding for charlie rose have been provided for the coca-cola company supporting this program since 2002. american express, and charles schwab