tv Politics Public Policy Today CSPAN February 25, 2015 4:00pm-6:01pm EST
is not a story of angels on the one side -- angel victims on the one side and demon persecutors on the other. thank you. >> thank you. so just to set the stage again, i'd like to have about ten minutes of some cross dialogue. i'll open with one yes. then we are going to open it up to the audience to ask questions so get those questions ready. do we have a microphone in the audience? we do? okay. just drawing on something that floyd said and i think brett said, floyd said that there seems to be a -- the more you have laws that kind of restrict speech, the more obnoxious speech you get. i heard you, brett, say in effect there was some relief in this ugly situation that at least the problem was out in the open. so from a french perspective, if some magically laws restricting whether it's wearing headscarfs or whether it's speaking your mind regardless of how hateful and obnoxious the words were,
would that make it better or worse in the short term, medium term and long term and how realistic is it to even think policymakers would move in the direction of less restriction? >> i don't think we're really discussing or considering more limitations to free speech. as floyd abraham said we already have legislation in place which -- for historical reason. the holocaust took place on our continent. nazis was on the european continent. so this was different from leer. this there is consensus on these laws generally. so nobody thinks seriously that in france we're going to have laws prohibiting or limiting the way you can draw the mohammed or
mock such religion or the other one. i don't think this is being considered at this stage. what may happen -- and what is already happening i think is that we all will be a bit more cautious. we already saw that in 2006 when those cartoons were first published in denmark. we had this debate about whether we should reprint them. we decided to reprint two of them. there were 12, i believe. and we choose them we decided that we couldn't not publish them at all but we didn't want to publish the most offensive ones. and also some of them were totally uninteresting. and so that was a kind of road,
if i may say. but other papers decided not to print any of them because they were afraid or because they thought it was a bad idea. and again we had this debate in the western press and american newspapers took a very different -- and media generally took a different road than the one we took in europe. but even in europe, some papers decided not to publish them. "the guardian" had a very, very lengthy discussion and debate on the editorial board about this and came up with this -- i thought they published a very good editorial explaining the decision, that they would give one way they gave 100,000 pounds to support "charlie hebdo," and on the other hand, they said no, we're not interested in
publishing this. this is not the way of showing our solidarity. we don't find this material -- >> do you agree with floyd's point there would be less thumb in the eye obnoxious journalism -- >> i think so. you can see what's happening in denmark already. yeah. some of us will take the defiant position and say no we still have to publish this, but that will be like an act of defiance. and some of us will say, you know, we have to be more cautious. and it's not -- i think this is a trend generally. if you think -- we have looked at the cartoons we published in the '70s about catholic priests and jesus christ in france. we wouldn't publish them today. i mean the tolerance of the public is not the same as it was 40 years ago.
so it's not only about islam. it's also i think a general cultural trend in at least in europe where we've noticed this difference. >> what is your response to that? >> i'm sorry? >> to her idea that there is going to be a self-imposed self-censorship, partly out of sort of -- in other words, it seems like instead of opening up the dialogue and having a wide-open debate, some of it ugly and some of it productive, everybody's going to pull back a little bit. >> i think that would be a terrible lesson to draw from the attacks of last january. >> i mean i was somewhat depressed when -- listening to her presentation that the questions seemed to be between censorship and self-censorship. that seems to me precisely the wrong debate to be having after "charlie hebdo." and i mean i'm somewhat shocked to learn that you would have
reservations about publishing images of christ analogous to the ones that the danish paper pub accomplished of mohammad. >> even at the "wall street journal" you would refrain from publishing things you either thought were in the interesting to your readers offensive to your readers and not particular particularly productive -- >> so in 2005 or 2006, i can now say it, i wrote the editorial making the case for why we didn't reprint the cartoons. >> yeah. speak into the microphone. >> sorry. in 2005 or '06, i guess now i can safely say i was the author of the editorial as to why we didn't tub accomplish those cartoons. making the case that what you have a right to do isn't necessarily what a paper with a
reputation ought to do. there is a question -- there is a distinction between right -- what you have a right constitutionally speaking to print, and what is tasteful and appropriate in a publication like the "wall street journal." i think our viewers evolved and our views changed. we did in fact publish the -- reprint the cover of "charlie hebdo" after -- in january after the attack because it seemed like you had to do it. and i would -- i wish we had in fact published the cartoons -- i'm speaking in a personal xas capacity. i wish we had published those cartoons in 2005 and '06. multi the targets for islamists who think that the proper response to publication of these cartoons is mass butchering. >> floyd how confident are you that that makes things better? >> nothing makes things too much better. it's a tough world out there.
but i mean i look back on the danish cartoon debate. yale university press, for which i was doing some legal work at the time, published a book a scholarly book about the whole danish cartoon affair and didn't put any of the cartoons in there. and my reaction was disbelief because one's not talking about taste any more. this is what the book was about. and while perhaps you didn't have to publish every one of them it's hard to communicate what was going on if you don't do it. i mean i had a letter in the "new york times" complaining
about the fact that they didn't publish any of the cartoons at issue with respect to what we're talking about today. their stated position was they have a policy against publishing materials which, by their nature, are offensive and don't advance a public discussion of some issue. my view was that they were news newsworthy. how could they not be? and while one could make a determination that in the service of good taste if you will, not to publish them all, publishing none of them seemed to me to depriving the readers of the chance to make a more informed judgment or at least have a better informed body of
nj as knowledge as to what was going on. now it may be that it was the head of cnn who put it most candidly. he said, "i think of the wives and children of my employees. that's why we are not doing it." now, you know? i'm not sending cnn into places they don't want to go, but that's a surrender to terrorism. period. i mean that's a way of saying they win. i think that's an unacceptable answer. >> just very briefly. the times when the decision was made not to publish the cartoons, it was pointed out that the "times" had previously published anti-semitic cartoons for the service of illustrating
some of the cartoons that are routine in much of the arab world when it comes to their view of jews. and that was the right decision to publish the anti-semitic cartoons and it made his decision not to publish the "charlie hebdo" cartoons that much stranger more curious, in my view. i guess i would say just further to what floyd just said you can't conduct editorial policy much less foreign policy, as if you are in a harry potter novel where, you know certain things cannot be named. this is not -- you're entering into kind of a strange plorl u.n. moral universe the moment that you do that which is another argument for -- right now we have a conference on violent extremism. but we cannot speak of the violent extremism that we are -- all of us -- aware of being engaged in a struggle with.
so is it's a slightly orwellian world. >> i'll be very brief just to clarify. because i don't want to be misunderstood. my personal view is that we had to publish those cartoons and we did. and again, this here. but what i don't -- of course i don't approve self-censorship and i think we have to stand up to all this. that's pretty obvious to me. but i don't like the compulsory aspect of -- we all have to publish. i mean every editor is -- takes his own decision and has the stakes in his or her newsroom. but i must say i don't like this idea that we all have to publish the same thing. it's a bit totalitarian to me.
>> so you're deciding as a broadcaster whether to put a beheading on the news and it's clearly a vital, interested and controversial with be but it is also promoting the terrorist group who's doing it. yes, no? you broadcast or not? >> no. >> floyd. >> no. >> a beheading. >> no, definitely not. >> so everybody's got a limit in any event. let's open up to the floor and i'm just going to start up front. we'll work our way back. please identify yourself. >> i would like to slightly disagree i guess -- [ inaudible ]
>> -- and i think france has to -- it is not about self-censorship or fear or anything. france has decided it's a multi--face society. when you're trying to discern the 8% or so population of france from radical fundamentalists, i don't think it is the smartest thing to do to publish cartoon that insults wide majority of muslim population. so i think again, i don't think we should change the law, french
law been oun side oron one side of the other but there is something broader than that and i think this debate is very important to have in france. >> next question. that wasn't a question. i think we'd rather have questions but i guess people want to comment. that's fine. was there another question? >> hi. i'm a reporter with "newsweek." i've been covering the middle eastern conflict and isis specifically for about a year-and-a-half, two years. as a younger reporter i was kind of curious how you think the social media age and particularly twitter have changed, an example like "charlie hebdo." so much of the original reporting and breaking news was coming out of social media and i was sort of curious how that was different from france to the united states because i found a
lot of american publications were pretty much giving all of their news through the aggregation of french publications' tweets especially lemond and the cover the new cover, was of "charlie hebdo" after the attacks. the one with prophet mohammed on the front was actually distributed through lemond. so through their twitter account. so i was just curious if you could each speak to sort of the social media age especially when so many think tanks are saying that a lot of these jihadists are coming through social media, and if france is now considering that there should be some kind of cap on the internet is it a cap on the youtube videos is it a cap on twitter and is there a limit as far and the journalistic aspect of that goes because that's how so many of us share information. >> the issue with twitter and
facebook is -- and other social media is that they are being used by the terrorist groups to communicate, and also to spread their propaganda in a very very nasty way. now, as i said we are only at the beginning of this. i don't know how you can really put a cap on this legally politically, it's a very complicated issue and also technologically. twitter has been closing a lot of accounts after those attacks. but you close one account, and then they open another one. so i'm not an expert on this technology so i don't know how it can work technically.
it's a huge issue. i'm struck by the fact that -- i mean i know you have this issue here in the states and barack obama was in silicon valley the other day and had addressed this. apparently the high-tech companies are being very, very reluctant to help him on this or to collaborate. but the french government hasn't been specific at all so far. it's still very very vague and i'm not sure they know what to do actually. >> floyd just while we have the question are tweeters as protected as the "wall street journal"? >> i'm glad you asked that rather than the last question to me which i'm 20 years too old to answer. but the answer to your question is yes. >> is that generally true in france, if you know? >> we don't have a first amendment. >> no. but i'm saying if i want to go
on twitter and say and do anything i want is there any distinction between what lemond can write and what i can write because it is a newspaper and i am not? >> well, that's also something which is being debated by legal experts experts, whether -- that's also new territory. google recently was -- european court of justice when it sentenced on the issue of right to be forgotten, the united court of justice decided google would be controller -- that's new stages. it's not only search engine. it is a new legal status. so again legally we are i think trying to find the right qualifications and the right responsibilities so i don't think in france it's very -- we have found the solutions yet. >> i would add the fact that
everyone is now press. everyone is now an editor is going to have -- it has not yet had -- a significant import for the first amendment. and it may not all be good. certainly issues on which the press, as press has received considerable protection, confidential sources, for example, of journalists is one where it seems to me there's no way that everybody that says something on the internet is going to get the same level of protection. and the result of that may well be -- because i continue to believe as i answered a moment ago, that everyone is going to wind up with the same protection at the end of the day. the result of that may be that the press, "press" may wind up
with some less protection than it has now because it will just be impossible -- or the judges will be unwilling to draw lines between the person in pajamas who's on the internet all day and the guy at a newspaper. in a perverse sort of way, that could wind up hurting freedom of the press. >> other questions from the audience audience? >> thanks. my name is gary cole. question for the panel. u.s. courts have traditionally interpreted freedom of speech with a rubric saying speech is not protected by yelling fire in a crowded theater. can you not make the distinction
between -- depicting the prophet mohammed in "charlie hebdo" or some other publication and the french comedian who augers for killing jews and violence against jews? >> well you can make a distinction between what constitutes incitement to criminal conduct. and we do that. a direct advocacy of incitement to criminal conduct with a high likelihood that it will occur is not protected, for example, by the first amendment. but that's a pretty polar extreme of speech. my reaction -- justice holmes who wrote that phrase, falsely by the way, falsely crying fire in a crowded theater, was, in
effect trivializing what that was about. if anything, we give more protection to political speech. not to speech in a theater about something like that. i mean there's nothing that is more protected, under american law, than commentary about how the world ought to function. who ought to be elected. how government ought to behave and assessments of people. so under our law at least i don't believe that the fire in a crowded theater notion really helps too much because if anything, it understates the level of first amendment protection that is given and is needed with respect to political or socially relevant speech.
>> if i go on television and suggest that a really good idea would be to kill all the first amendment lawyers in the u.s. would you think that kind of speech should be protected? it's just an example. >> yeah. there was a cartoon once in "the new yorker" which showed the supreme court sitting around a table and one of the justices says, "do you ever have a day when everything seems unconstitutional?" that's what your question suggests to me. >> just one thing. he's smarter than that. he doesn't call for killing the jews. that would be easy to qualify as a crime. he says this well known jewish journalist, it's a pity he didn't perish in the gas chamber. that he was charged with.
right? then the last thing he did was he put on his twitter account [ speaking french ] that was the killer at the kosher supermarket. and that can be -- that fits into glorification of terrorism charge. then again that sentence can be interpreted in different ways, so, you know it's difficult. it is not black and white. >> does his prosecution for those kind of acts make him more popular among -- >> yeah. yeah. yeah. yeah absolutely. i mean to go back to the issue of anti-semitism, there is a strong streak of anti-semitism
in the muslim community and in the arab world. i mean there is no denial of this. so it's not the anti-semitism that we knew in france in the bashir regime and in the 20th century. it is a different one. the reach unfortunately is the same but the origin is different. he is very popular in some segments of the french society that's true. and so the more you -- the more he's persecuted, the more popular he is, yeah, in those segments. . >> other audience questions? >> can i just ask for the two journalists, in deciding to publish after the murders, how much was your own newspaper's security and fear an ingredient? how much did you say, well are we putting our employees and others in harm's way by inviting
a violent act against us? >> we didn't take this into account. no. we had a discussion. we had a debate, including in the newsroom among editors and also in the newsroom. but that was not really a factor factor. as the people who went to the january 11th rally didn't take into account the fact that there might be more attacks. this was something we thought we should do. >> it was a major factor. danny pearl was my colleague. so we thought long and hard about it. i think the"the journal" has more reporters overseas than all the newspapers combined. we have a lot of people in harm's way all the time. so we give it a great deal of thought. and so the decision to publish
the cover of "charlie hebdo" -- the cover after the attack was made with a great deal of consideration and deliberation. by the way though i received -- this is to the "newsweek" reporter -- after i was on bill maher the other day, someone tweeted to me that he wants to buy me a plane ticket to syria so he can enjoy watching me be beheaded. so my response was to retweet it. i think that's the only way to answer these people and exposure for who they are. >> question. >> former american foundation
young leader. i have more of a comment which is that, with the freedom of speech comes i believe responsibility especially for newspapers and media organizations. and while we discuss whether or not something should or should not be published, newspapers and media organizations should have a policy, some principles that at the end of the day they're producing a pure rated product that's supposed to be a service to the public. whether you publish a beledding or repeat a racial epithet, those are questions of what best serves your public and your audience. and over time, because we do live in this digital age, everybody can publish but it now becomes incumbent on the consumer to decide what best serves his or her purposes. i did have a question. i'll just throw it back to the journalists. what are your editorial policies
around publishing this type of information, and how are they centered? are they centered to actually serve the public? >> that's the -- the point you make is an excellent one. we are agents -- we are essentially at "the journal" we are the institutions safeguarding the freedom of the press, and at the same time we're curators of culture and what is that pooaboo an what is not taboo and how taboos evolve, by the way. so there are -- we are a family newspaper. so we will avoid foul language whenever possible. there are, by the way, occasions when you cannot escape using an epithet, a foul word, if it is intrinsic to understanding the story. and when you reach those moments, a judgment has to be made as to whether you can
communicate the same information without offering the explicit language or the explicit images. i mean all i would say is that there is no science to this. it's editors sitting around a table making often very difficult judgment calls. as i said i wrote the editorial on why we would not publish the cartoons back in 2006. after "charlie hebdo," it seemed like a different set of considerations were in effect. and people sort of looked for hard and fast and relatively simple rules for how these things are done. and the truth is there are none. what we try to be are responsible adults making serious judgments about difficult questions. and anyone who would suggest that there's some simple line or it is all one way or all the other i think is just not
engaging in a serious conversation. >> other questions from the audience? there are many americans who never heard of "charlie hebdo" before the murders. i've seen it many times in paris and candidly, didn't read it. what's the difference -- from someone like yourself and other educated french people to what they thought of it then, how they came to think of it and what is the future of specifically "charlie hebdo"? >>py was not a regular reader of "charlie hebdo." my brother is. he's a subscriber. he's a teacher and we had this discussion sometimes that we joke with him and say how can you read this macho-like magazine. and he said, you know, he would explain to me because of the irreverence. ive reverence streak and this impertinence which is the hallmark -- which is the hall
mack hallmark of "charlie hebdo." i will conclude with saying if you can read it, it's good news, go on subscribe to it. i think this is something -- i think it is average circulation was 60,000 copies a week. it was something -- which was not mass circulation but people are happy with it to be around. it's an important part of our life. and another thing is that those cartoonists were very famous in the general public. some of them wrote comics for children. not the same -- with not the same drawings but, you know, some of the cartoons or comics i read as a child or teenager included drawings from them. they were also invited to tv shows like talk shows and they would draw while people were
debating. so they were -- they were really popular figures in french culture, in the french public. and now it's going to go on. of course, there are -- they have collected quite a lot of money, but i don't know how much that -- how long they can go on with this. but they are trying to put together a newsroom which can produce regularly the paper again and i think they have -- the next issue is in a week, i think, is next week. yeah. they are week inging out of another newsroom. so yeah, it will go on. definitely. >> can i just add a factual correction? we did have "national lampoon"
in this country for many many years. >> and "mad" magazine too. >> "mad" magazine was more for children less pornographic. but we have "south park" which i think is our own version of "charlie hebdo." do yourself a favor. there is a wonderful episode of "south park" which resolved around mohammed in a bear suit. while the figures of jesus buddha and moses were busy snorting cocaine, looking at pornographic magazines and -- and it was just so brilliant and so profound in so many ways. i would say it is a higher version of "charlie hebdo." just with a greater degree of genius. i just want to -- >> i want to thank everybody and invite alan back up -- you want to come back up? >> thanks to everybody for an interesting and lively discussion. >> live tomorrow here on c-span3, the federal communications commission holds a meeting on open internet rules
and access to broadband internet. they'll be examining a proposal by commission chairman tom wheeler that would give the fcc authority to ensure that internet service providers give consumers access to all legal content and applications on an equal basis without favoring or blocking some sources. you can see that meeting live tomorrow here on c-span3 beginning at 9:30 a.m. eastern. here are some of our featured programs for this weekend on the c-span networks. on c-span2's book tv, saturday night at 10:00 p.m. eastern on "after words," allan ryskind talks about the communist party in hollywood during the 1930s. and sunday at noon, on "in-depth," our live three-hour conversation with harvard law professor and author lani guiner. and on american history tv on
c-span3 saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern on the civil war, a discussion about the burning of columbia, south carolina, following the surrender of the city to union general william sherman and his troops in 1865. and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on oral histories, an interview with daniel elsburg on the pentagon papers, a classified study on vietnam which he copied and gave to the "new york times" in 1971. find our complete television schedule at c-span.org. let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400. e-mail us at comments comments @c-span.org. or send us a tweet at c-span#comments. on tuesday british prime minister david cameron appeared before a parliamentary committee to answer questions regarding the uk's foreign policy
countering violent extremism, and the ukraine-russia conflict. he announced that his government would send over military personnel to advise and train the ukrainian troops but said the uk was not at the stage to send lethal weapons. the prime minister also answered questions about three london teenage girls entering syria to reportedly join isis. this is just under an hour. >> welcome, prime minister. this session will have two parts to it. one on foreign affairs, in which we'll discuss countries affected by islamic extremism and ukraine, and in the second session the flexibility of civil service and the machinery of government. >> afternoon.
can we return to the subject of sanctions against russia which you touched on to your statement yesterday afternoon. it's very important that the eu speaks with one voice towards -- on policy towards russia especially on sanctions. the sanctions are due to expire at the end of july and i believe you are trying to get an earlier agreement. but there are a number of different positions inside europe. people like germany and ourselves are taking quite a hard line. some are in the middle and some are actually rather hostile to it, like greece and hungary. how are we going to approach this in order to try to get u.n. nam ty unanimity? >> it is going to be difficult because whether these sanctions expire you need unanimity to renew them. there is one set that have to be renewed in july and another set renewed in september. there is a case, as i said yesterday in the comments to
bring forward the renewal particularly if there is further action by russian separatists on the ground. to make a very strong statement bring it forward. point people to the facts. we gathered at the european council last time after angela merkel francois hollande came together. what happened after that was horrible. i think we need to use all our diplomatic and other skills and efforts to convince those that have been more skeptic about sanctions that it's only a firm stand that will be taken notice of in the kremlin. that's what we should do. we've got some time to do it. britain has quite an important role to play in all of that.
we have been, as i put it, the sort of strong pole in the tent in terms of sanctions. we should continue to play that role. >> are you optimistic that they will be extended? >> i think -- i'm always optimistic. i think some of it will depend on what happens on the ground. i think that if miraculously heavy weapons are withdrawn cease-fires are held elections start, all the elements are put in place, i think you will see people wanting to lighten the sanctions load. but if we don't see that, you'll get a different view. but as i said, britain's role is to be at the top realm of the spectrum to try to keep the european union and united states together. i think we should be clear about this pattern of behavior we've seen from putin now over many years. that's the argument -- when i'm at the european council table, that's the argument i make. >> do you think you will simply extend them or deepen them to make them tougher? >> i think the extension should happen in any event, even if not
very much changes on the ground. they should be deepened if further steps of destabilization are taken. i think particularly people will be looking at mariopo as the next potential point. personally i think the argument for further action would be overwhelming and i think that would be the view of countries like poland, the palbaltic states and many others and i think we'd have to argue very strongly that -- if you stand back from all this, what is the argument we are making? of course there is short-term pain when you put sanctions on a country. there is short-term pain to your own xliz. but the point i would make is in the medium to long term, countries of europe depends on a rules-based system where people obey the rules and the instability we will field if we don't stand up to russia in the long term will be deeply damaging to all of us because you'll see further
destabilization. next it will be moldova or one of the baltic states. that sort of instability and uncertainty will be dreadful for our economies, dreadful for our stability. >> the foreign secretary said the other day that russia can no longer be considered a strategic partner to the eu. doesn't this cause us a few problems, because as a permanent member of the security council, russia, they're involved in a number of global issues. in particular iran syria, afghanistan. how do we square this? >> i think that's a very good question. i don't think russia is behaving like a strategic partner to the european union. that's absolutely right so we should be very tough on this issue. look, where we are working together, as we are with the approach to iran, we should continue to work together. it is very important that iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon. it is very important we keep a long timeline between wherever they are now and a nuclear
weapon. russia has the same interest as us in that. so it is perfectly possible to have a very tough approach over sanctions is, over the overall relationship, while when it comes to arooniran continuing to work in this format of the five permanent members of the security council across germany. >> can we get to the baltics and the use of article 5. if the russians start to destabilize the region blue media disinformation proxy warfare, does article 5 offer them any protection? >> i think the protection they are offered in those circumstances is that we are friends, we're allies we're colleagues. already we've sent british planes to do the baltic air policing. we work very closely with their intelligence and security services, very fruitfully, too on things like cyber. we'll work with them and help them strengthen their defenses. so they know and maybe we need
to do more to emphasize this. they know that in britain's they have a got a very strong friend. i think if you talk to latvia, lithuania and estonia leaders you will ahear that very strong strongly. >> implementing article 5 is a political decision rather than a military one. what would it take to say the line in the sand's been drawn, if militia starting operating just over the border in the baltic states. would that be considered a breach of article 5, and in which case what would our reaction be? >> i think that's a very good question. i don't want to give some unthought-through answer. with you but we are xlitedcommitted to their collective defense. where they're being cyber attacked, we'd help them with their cyber defenses. i think we need to do more, frankly, in the area of information. one of the complaints you get from the baltic states that there's nothing to counter the
deluge of sort of russian paid and bad media spreading this information. we have to recognize one of the strengs strengths we've got as a country, we have a very strong and impartial media. we have a wonderful brand in the bbc that's known for its impartial news and we should be supporting the bbc to provide news services and news channels where people otherwise are getting a diet of russian disinformation. >> going back to the question though if militia activity did start over the border, would we consider that a breech of article 5? >> we would consider those sorts of threats to states we would consider that something that we would be helping them to defend against. >> how would you respond to russian incursions into airspace and territorial waters? we had the do we shrug it off or do we treat it as more serious threat to our ability to respond? >> of course it's serious
because we defend our airspace very carefully. and we have the resources pilots, planes the information systems to do just that. i think we should be careful that in our response we are clear, firm calm. i'm sure the russians would like us to react in a more sort of volume upless volumeless. last year we scrambled our planes. i think we should be strong, measured and clear but we should be absolutely confident that in our air force and in the typhoons and pilots that we have -- we have 125 typhoon now in service -- we are more than capable of protecting our airspace. >> the defense secretary had something to say about both of
these points during his briefing to the "times" and "the telegraph." was he misunderstood or was he spot-on when he said there was a real and present danger of russian activity in the baltic states, of the kind that have been referred to? >> i think he's right to highlight the fact that the baltic states feel this pressure very greatly. and they don't always feel the rest of europe understands them. from where they sit they're having russian sanctions against some of their goods. on lithuanian clees. they're having russian media blast them into their airspace. we often have cyber attacks. they are subject to a lot of destabilization and they want their nato partners friends and allies to understand that. that's why they welcome us. as i said yesterday we have 4,000 british troops taking part in exercises in eastern europe.
we have the baltic air control missions. we are doing a lot to re-assure them they are full members of nato. they get nato protection in every way and we're with them whether they face these struggles. >> so real and present danger are the right words. >> i think he spoke very clearly around he's right to talk about the threats they feel. >> not only incursions into our airspace, you said of the cold war -- in relation to that -- that it looks like it's warming up. is that spot-on? >> look, i've given you the figures. clearly, as i said the other day, i think the russians are trying to make some sort of point. not sure entirely what the point is. i believe reacting very calmly, reasonably. look, we should be confident of our strengths. our economy is going. the russian economy is shrinking. our economy is not wholly dependent on role. the russian economy is wholly dependent on oil. our country has a robust free democratic political system with freedom of speech and all sorts of rights that people only dream of in russia. let's have the confidence. our economy is bigger than
russia. even though the population is many times the size of ours. our economycapable of supporting thecapable. we don't have legacy assets that don't work anymore. let's have confidence. and when we look at this situation, terrible though it is in ukraine let's not talk ourselves into some idea this has been a fantastic success for russia. it it hasn't been. the people of ukraine have voted to try to have a less corrupt trading and other relationship with the countries of the european union. so we shouldn't talk ourselves pause a couple of the russian planes fly around the channel we shouldn't talk ourselves into a situation where we think we can't defend ourselves. we can. >> wars between states tend to start when one side doesn't understand the position being taken by the other. or indeed both.
>> yes. >> don't you think we have to have a clear understanding of what russia's intentions are and doesn't president putin need understanding that nature will respond decisively. >> very good point. putin knows we would stand by our article 5 obligations. if a country of nato is attacked. an attack on one is on all. that is nato doctrine. i sign to it absolutely. and we've committed as a nation and we're a leading player in nato in terms of troops and resources and everything else. so asking technical questions about exactly -- as i say if there is a cyber attack on the baltic state, yes that does consider all of us trying to help them with their cyber defenses. i'm being a as clear as i can. but putin know nato is the rock
solid. if he attacks a nato country he would have a response in the whole of native. he knows that. now, do we understand his strategic goals? i would argue that we've now seen a very clear pattern of the behavior. we saw in georgia. we've seen it with transnis ra. now ukraine. that he would like if a countries respond weakly to try and restore some of the russia near abroad to russia. that is what he would like to do. in my view that is not acceptable. these countries are democracies. they should be able to make a choice about their future and we should support them in their choice. that is no say that we are insensitive to russian pride and russia's ambition to have a road in the world. of course we're not. and i've tried to have a relationship with putin and show some understanding of that. but what we can't do -- i think
some would like us to do this -- is say well let's have some accommodation. where we say to russia well of course these countries are not really country of course they are your domain. whatever they vote for, whatever they do. i think that would be writing off, you know, 11, 12, 13 countries in the world. and i think that is not the way britain behaves. and we made these mistakes in our history of talking about far away countries of which we knew little. and it is not a sensible things to do. now we should -- i'm not saying we should send huge numbers of british troops to ukraine or that even we're at the stage of arming the ukrainens. but what we should do is make the weight of our economic power, that europe and america play against russia if they continue to behave in this way. so they are very clear. so if putin knows if he continues down this path he cease going to have a very different relationship with europe, with britain, with
america, with the west. and if he wants the consequences which is further economic dislocation and the less economic prosperity for his people. and if we want he can. but that will be the result. >> specifically to the ukraine. last week i spent three days in kiev and saw the prime minister who told me he regarded britain alongside america as ukraine's strongest ally. he also said his country has been invaded and the ukrainian armed forces are confronting not just separatists by regular russian troops tanks and armor, which they are simply not equipped to resist. will britain consider supplying ukraine with the lethal defensive weapons which they have requested including counterbattery radar, antitech weapons and others. >> we're not at the stage of supplying lethal equipment.
we have announced a whole series of non lethal equipment. night vision, body armor which we have already said that we would give to ukraine. over the course of the next month we're going to be deploying british service personal in advice training tactile and medical care. and we're also developing an infantry training program with ukraine to improve the durability of their forces. a number of british service personnel will be involved. they will be well away from the area of conflict. but i think this is the sort of thing we should be helping with. i don't say we should rule out forever going further. i think america is thinking carefully about this. but think we've had national security council discussions and had very clear decisions that we should be in the space of providing the non lethal o
support and the advice. and the ukrainians, see us as a very strong friend to them and i think that is where we should be. i think the reason for not going further is we don't believe fundamentally there is some military solution to this issue. there is needs to be a diplomatic solution which i think should be enabled by sanctions and pressure and the economic weight of europe and america. but where we can help a friend in non lethal equipment we should. >> the ukrainians would see to you, whilst we don't see a military solution it would seem the russians do. and they are unable to resist the strength of russian aggression. and while they undoubtedly welcome the aide we are given it is not going to allow them to stop further russian aggression. will the government consider the possibility of supply of defensive weapon this is this aggression continue skbls you could say some of the things we are supplying are helping the
ukrainians with their defense. but i would approach the argument in a slightly different way. and say -- look, i think we're probably in agreement. what we're seeing is russian backed aggression. and often russian troop tanks and missiles. as i said you can't buy these on ebay. these are coming from russia, no doubt. the world knows that. sometimes people don't want to see that. but that is the facts. i think what we should be putting into place is a sense that if there is another debaltseve that would be different from what we've seen so far. i think if you look at the effect of sanctions on russian banks ux big companies, on the economy, it is having an effect. it hasn't yet changed their behavior but it is certainly beginning to change some of, i think, the advice and the thinking that putin will be getting. because a lot of business people
in russia can see this is a dead end. >> can i explore a little further that point about sanctions. because you know that the ukrainance believe that russia's ambitions do not stop at debtsive. alongside america and in particular the possibility of at least temporary suspension of russia's membership in the banks and financial messaging system? >> i think short answer is yes we should not rule out those things. look if there was major further incursion by russian backed forces and effectively russian forces into ukraine, we should be clear about what that is. this is trying to ing toing to dismember a democracy, a member of the united nations a sovereign state on the continent of europe.
and it is not acceptable. i would help that the european union collectively would respond with new sanctions and tier 3 really hitting the economy of russia. but were that not possible then of course we should look at other avenues as well. obviously looking at the swift banking issues is a very big decision. but, you know, there is a logic for it. which is if russia is going to leave the rules-based system of the 21st century, then russia is going to have to start thinking about whether it is going to be in the 21st century when it comes to investment, banking, clearinghouse clearinghouses, the other things that make the world work. you can't leave one part of the world, the u.n. charter, and not destabilizing sovereign states and expect to be treated proper by by all the other parts in fact the world. so this is a logic in what you say. >> the ukrainians have also suggested the only way of maintaining the cease fire is
kpliemt of some kind of international peace keeping force, both along the contact line and the ukrainen/russia border. is that something which british government might support. >> i think where we are now is supporting the osce observers and boosting them with extra money, resources and personnel. not plooes least because the oce is something that is accepted by russia as an organization as well as by ukraine. i think in terms of peace keepers, i think there are a lot of problems there. is there a peace yet to keep? how would you get u.n. backing when you have russia as a member of the security council? where would the troops be drawn from? i think we're focuses on the diplomatic pressures and other pressures to make minsk work. and if not then we'll look at
other things. >> if ukraine is to have a viable economic future it is going to need a huge amount of support. as well as the imf package which is hopefully in place. which is your response to congressman george saros ukraine employer's federation or some kind of plan to encourage investment into ukraine? >> i think the imf program and the eu contributions are important. one point and the ukrainian i would say this to them. they have got to deal with issues of corruption and governance. and if you just poor money into the country it would disappear. so we should be very hard headed about this. although we are their strongest supporter. a very big backer of ukraine's right to decide its own future we should be very very stuff about a reform program. because that -- a good reform program is worth billions of
dollars of aid. and one of the concerns i have is that while i think there are some quite effective reformers flow in the government of the ukraine, there are quite a lot of different plans floating around and i think we need a unified plan to get behind before dealing with more money. >> prime minister, i just spent several days in latvia with the european scrutiny committee. and by the way we kept on bumping into the bundes committee there at the same time. >> -- >> yesterday on your statement on the eu i asked you about the need for the united kingdom to stand up for u.k. interests as well as those after europe as we have so successfully in the past
over the last hundred years. you reply that we take a key and leading role on eu foreign policy. however on the one voice issue, which you have just been referring to in relation to the russia/ukraine/minsk discussions. the u.k. was and you were discluded by the format. who devised the format and why was it divided in that way. federico said on the program, we decided together not to put the european flag as such as the negotiating table but to make clear that the efforts by germany and france were european efforts. so who insisted that they should negotiate under their own flags as for example angela merkel did when she was in the white house having discussions with
president obama with the german flag behind her? where does this lead our so called leading role in europe? >> very good question. first of all we shouldn't be too precious about not being involved in every different set of negotiations. there are lots of negotiations that take place on this and other things. and there is no point obsessing about whether or not you are in the room. we have a very clear role when it comes to ukraine, which you have just heard has won us the support of the ukrainian, the baltic states t polls who see us as the most reliable ally on standing up to the russia firmly. the first to argue for proper sarngs the first to demonstrate our support to ukraine. we've gotta clear role. how did it come about it was when we were in normandy commemorating the heros of d-day.
>> -- as it happens. >> indeed. and my grandfather. and president obama and i actually thought it was not the moment and the right time to have a start of round table with russia and ukraine. so the discussions went ahead with france and germany. and i would commend france and germany nor their diplomatic efforts to try to put together a diplomatic package that the ukrainians and russians can support. the key has always been get the ukrainians and the russians in the room together. the key has been getting them to talk toe each other. and all credit to them for doing this work. i think what federico is saying is obviously they would quite like the eu to be in the room as well but this is being done on behalf of everyone in a european way. and i suppose that's fair enough. but the key thing is you know, not just to hold these diplomatic discussions. the key thing is what happens when they don't -- when and if
they don't work. and that is where britain's role. what really matters is can we persuade the rest of europe to impose the sanctions. and on that is britain is very much in the vanguard, very much in the lead and very much listened to by others in europe. when it comes to the knowledge of the financial intuitions and i key industries we have a as good a situation as everybody. don't be precious about being in the room. >> in that case i can move to mr. jengen. >> yes. prime minister you say there is no military solution to this ukrainian crisis. even though it's brought about by a dictator who clearly believes in military solutions. recent history suggests in the
georgia case that there is a military solution because that stopped when the americans went in to the sea. what evidence is there that we can stop without a similar demonstration of the western military rule and resolve. >> i would take a slightly is different lesson from the georgia experience. i don't think russia necessarily believed that america was going to intervene militarily. what happened was that i think the lessons from the georgia experience is that no consequences followed from russia's effective dismembering of georgia and the creation of others. what should have happened after a sovereign member of the u.n. goes through that experience is there should be permanent long-term consequences,
sanctions and such that are put in place so russia draws a lesson and that didn't happen. and i think that is part of the problem. >> with respect that answered a different question. which was a good answer but it was a different question. the fact is the invasion was stopped was because we were prepared to up the ante militarily. >> i would argue that the upping of the ante -- the biggest effect we can have i think is an economic effect. and i think we should focus on that. of course you can take -- you look at more military solutions and of course the americans are currently looking should they provide more armaments to the ukrainian army and as i said we're providing non lethal equipment. and that is an avenue. and it looks like america is thinking about that quite seriously. my argument is the greatest power we have in respect to this crisis is an economic power and it is that we should be leveraging. >> moving to syria.
the war to degrade and destroy isil and syria does require a policy shift. would you accept that a collapse of the assad regime, which i have to admit is not likely in the moment is not currently in the u.k.'s national interest? >> i'm not sure i would accept that. my view is that assad is one of the great recruiting sergeants of isil. two things helped to bring about isil, the brutality of assad against his own people in syria and the utter uselessness of the monarchy government in iraq that was sectarian and only stood for the shia. that combined with the religious extremism. those two things combined to create the isil phenomenon that we see. would that be a -- is there a solution to isil in syria that
involves assad staying in power? no there isn't because he is part of the problem. so if assad were to go and be replaced that at least would open the possibility of some sort of government in syria that would represent all of the people rather than some of the people. >> well -- >> so i'd come about it a slightly different way. >> the alternatives scenario is that the asset does go and isil fills the vacuum. >> i don't think that is realistic. because at the end of the day -- i mean we're seeing this in iraq where isil have lost already several hundred square kilometers of territory. where you are beginning to see fractions of problems because they are unbelievely brutal and hideous in what they do. and the vast majority of people in syria don't want an isil type regime. they want a decent inclusive government. in the end they all come back to
the same question, which is how can you build inclusive government with rule of law that isn't corrupt that is able to have armed forces to represent all of the country and provide security. that is what we're trying in iraq. i think abod is doing a good job. and it takes long because we're got assad in power. so we need to build the forces of moderate opposition and bailed transition where they move to something better. that is going to take a long time. but i don't think there are any shortcuts. i don't think there are other routes through this. >> who are our natural partners in syria no now? who are we going to work with? any prospect we'll turn to the syrian kurds? >> our natural partners in syria, sound a bit trite are the people who want a decent nonsectarian inclusive govd.
government. includes syrian curtkurds and others. were there to be a transition you would need a figure or figures to take over from assad who could take some of the other white situation with them as well as appeal to the sue sunnis. >> we seem to be focuses very much on the military side rather than the political. >> what we're doing in iraq there is a fully joined up strategy. people are frustrated just because these things take time. but it is a fully joined up strategy of supporting the iraqi government, which is now less sectarian and more includes i. about trying to help train up the iraqi security forces. and we're playing our role along with others particularly things like counter ied. but it is also about the air
reconnaissance and strike capabilities that we have that we're providing above the skies of iraq on a daily basis. i was last week talking about just this. and the truth is we're the second largest provider of strikes. we account for more than france and the next two countries i think combined. and as well as that obviously we've got voyager aircraft providing air to air refuelling. we've got intelligence and surveillance aircraft. we've got ships that are evolved too. there is a very large british military component playing its part in an international including arab countries strategy. the military is one part of it. i think where i'm sure more can be done is the sort of diplomatic and political surge to help the iraqi government do what it need to be do. >> do you think we could be doing anymore to help the kurds than we are at the moment? we're supplied heavy machine guns and people to train them
how to use them. but all the help you give have go through a torturous route through baghdad and up toer erbil. >> i don't have the numbers in front of me. perhaps it might be useful for the committee to provide a note bringing together all of the things we're doing both in iraqi kurdistan and elsewhere across the country. but i mean we have -- i've got here 40 heavy machine guns. half a million pounds of ammunition. 50 million tons of non lethal support. metal detecters for counter ied. in terms of peshmerga. we've got 30 experts in the kurdish region training on counter ieds. perhaps might be useful to give you a full list because it is an enormous coalition effort involving all these different
countries. what i say to the system here is don't feel you have to do something of everything. try and work out where the british contribution can be its most significant and helpful. so that is why i was pushed so hard for the vote in parliament to allow the strike work. because actually if you look at capabilities of the tornado aircraft with the raptor pods and the brimstone missiles, those are as capable possibly more capable than anything the americans have and they really wanted us to be there with that work. so try to figure where we can give the greatest effect and focus on that. >> sticking with the kurds they are our most reliable partners out there and a lot of them have died in action there. yet they weren't invited to the antiisil coalition conference we had here in london recently. is there any reason for that? they want to the munich security
conference on invitation. >> i'll have to check this. i suspect that if you have a conference, which is a conference of sovereign states including obviously iraq and other neighboring sovereign states then it is more difficult to have regions as well. i suspect that is the answer but perhaps i'll include that in my letter to you. >> fine. quickly turning to libya. libya is chaos at moment. there is vast quantities of arms uncontrolled flows of refugees and migrates and clear signs isis is moving in. you mentioned jonathan powell's initiative out there trying to establish a national unity dialogue amongst groupings. what is your perspective of that. i gather this morning one of the governments ss has ruled out.
>> it is not just jonathan powell whose working out there. this is a u.n. special representative, special representative leon whose o conducting talks on the 23rd and 24th of february in mor roccok morocco. there is an argument about which ones are beyond the pale in terms of either support for terrorism or support for the narrative that underlines terrorism. and so it is often difficult to get those countries that are most interested in trying to help libya. whether that is egypt on the one hand or qatar on the other to agree who should take part. it is extremely difficult. there is just no shortcut here. >> yeah. >> what happened i would defend our action in libya in that we responded to the potential of a genocide by gaddafi and we stopped that from happening and saved lives.
that gave libyan people a better chance for a future but a chance they haven't yet taken. and we need their politicians to demonstrate, and their militia leaders and others to demonstrate a will to take that chance. and that means they have to put aside their differences and come together in a national unity government but it is very difficult. >> thank you. >> thank you. you have said in your capacity as chair of the panel you talked about importance of creating effective institutions and golden threat of governments. and you just said we have a dysfunctional government in iraq and now a more unified government. can you indicate what you see is the role of working with the parliament. >> the parliament -- >> in iraq. >> in iraq. >> and actually working with mps is part of the process in helping to build an inclusive iraq. do you agree with that? do you think we should continue? >> i do. i think a lot of common themes to all knees countthese countries,
whether yemen, iraq, libya, syria, nigeria -- all of the areas where you see problems of islamist extremism bubbling up because you have ineffective government. a lot of it comes back to not do you hold elections. because lots of countries hold elections do you have the building backs of the democracy. the rule of law. effective parliament. a way of holding your government to account. does your government just represent one bunch of people and extract money from the country for these people or is it inclusive? these interest vitalet are the vital questions of. so parliament in iraq yes. >> we spend more money on supporting elections that be ss than we do in supporting the people who have been elected. >> that is something i need to reflect on. of course elections matter but the building blocks of democracy
matter in many ways more. so that is properly funded because the work we do with political parties is very important. >> you also -- we rookd at conflict prevention and indeed if it is more and more focussing on post conflict states it is common knowledge that preventing a conflict saves you more money than dealing with one afterwards. do you think we are doing enough to prevent conflict or where we've managed to get people together to stop it's calculating? and in that context, do you think that the funding should do more about that? you have set up the conflict stability and security fund which will have a billion pounds next your and effectively having its monies set by the security council, which you chair. give us an idea that's going to
be different to tackle situations. >> what's different is this funding is not properly discussed around the cabinet table with the members of the council, including the home secretary thinking b about the domestic security and foreign and countries that are broken and need mending and so it's proper conversation about these countries, the risk they pose to us and what we can do to prevent conflict. i think it is an excellent thing. i can't tell do you money will be spent but it tends to go to those country like somalia where early intervention with prevent breakdown. i think it goes to a bigger argument. this is an argument which is so much of what we're doing with develop and aid is about security. there is no prosperity and development without security. and i think that is one of the ways to explain to people why we think meeting our aid target is
important. because, you know, ifsomalia, that country has the capability of delivering to the world, drug, terrorism, mass migration, violence. on the other hand if we can stabilize it and improve it -- there have been steps forward. at first it was a massive problem of the piracy because of our active intervention and putting armed guards on ships and all the rest, that has been radically reduced. so working together, aide, and defense and foreign policy, in order to deliver security is very much part. >> wore focussing on these conflict states which are very often dysfunctional and corrupt and difficult to deal with. and turns to nigeria for example. talked about isis spreading across north africa and into west africa. boko haram tried to link one them even in afghanistan. niek ra is the most populated
community in africa. >> disastrous. >> show are we going to deal with that if it happens and how will we work with agencies in nigeria to contain and reverse that situation? >> this is a good example where the security council made a difference. sitting around the table you have the development secretary who's got one of the largest development programs in nigeria of any developed country. i got excellent high commissioner in nigeria who comes back to explain what they think is going on the ground. you have the secretary of state for defense whose tornado pilots are flying over nigeria with raptor pods to find the shabbat girls and the military involved in training and the home secretary whose experts in counterterrorism and security are working with counterparts in
nigeria. and all of this is being discussed in one place with as it it were effectively one budget but maybe we can go even further than that to make sure we maximize the relationship politically and other. if you are saying how is it all going? it is still testing because nigeria has massive challenges in terms of governance and corruption and all the rest. i think if you look around europe you will be hard pressed to find a country with a more joined up clear, thought through approach to what nigeria needs in terms of help from us. >> margaret hodges' committee produced a report on the development group which is generally speaking thought to be good thing, promoting infrastructure. but had concerns funds were going to the looting of the nigerian oil revenues. so how can we be sure our money is actually delivering what it is intended to do rather than
being diverted? >> i missed one person whose who is sitting around the table, the archbishop of the canterbury. you can never be certain that monies aren't -- that there isn't misspending or corruption and when dealing with the countries that suffer from corruption you have to be especially careful. all i can say is i think we are in terms of aid spending probably the most transparent country in the world. we have an independent body we've established to check how money is spent. but, you know, you have always got -- there is no perfect place you are going to get to. you just got to keep your ours. >> -- yemen is collapsing before our eyes and the world can't stand by and watch. [inaudible] there was a humanitarian crisis and al qaeda and the south
arabian peninsula la is gaining ground. you and william hague have played a very important part ensuring yemen stayed on the path of democracy. now we a real crisis, the possibility of a civil war. what on earth can we do to save yemen? >> this is i think in my experience of trying to work out how you can help countries and try to prevent what is happening from happening is thorough depressing. in fact one of the most depressing cases. because every normal tool kit from the foreign policy tool kit was applied. a contact group of like-minded countries and neighbors was established. intensive support and aid programs delivered and all the rest. and yet as you say you have now got the situation where the hewitt this seffectively taking over the north of the country. is there a president. our embassy presence had to
leave. what can we do next? i think the most important thing is to work with the most important neighbor which is saudi arabia and try to work with them to work out how to best provide some level of stability in yemen. but we're a long way from that. because it is deeply unstable. deeply richb. i think the only thing i would say if -- trying to draw a common theme across all these things. if there is a need for inclusive government with the rule of law that includes the whole country yemen is yet another example. because of course, you know, while everyone was trying to get behind a better president, it was still not an inclusive government representing all of the country. you have the sunni shia split demonstrated by the huthi. >> yesterday you make a statement about the three young london girls who had gone to
fight in syria or support isil. is there an estimate has to how many are being ral callizeddicalized? >> the estimates i can give you about the number of people who have traveled to syria we've regularly publish those figures. i think trying to give you figure for how many people are looking at the radicalized content on the internet is not a figure we published or one that is very easy to estimate. >> one we could find credible? >> you know, i've got a feeling -- well i'll go away and think about that and i'll ask the experts but i have a feeling it's one of the figures that has to be quite concocted from experts and therefore doesn't tell us. >> but as the serious problem. >> hugely serious problem. and it goes to this whole point about trying to -- recognize first of all everyone is in this
battle against islamist extreme extremism. we can't just say the border force should have stopped them or the police should have intervened. it would be great if they had done. but the fact is we need the school and community doing as much as it can. that is the point about the whole duty. the prevent duty we're putting on institutions is to say we're all in this together. we've all got to play a role. we also need social media organizations to do more in terms of helping. they are helping take down pages and pages of the extremist material. but there is more they can do.
interior secretary sal lie jewel testifies about her budget request for 2016 and the 8% budget increase from the previous fiscal year. the senator energy and natural resources committee hearing is chaired by lisa murkowski. call the hearing to order this morning. we're hear this morning with secretary jewell and mr. connor. thank you both for being here.
we're here to review the president's budget request for the department of the interior for fiscal year 2016. and i'm going spend a little bit of time here this morning in opening comments to talk about the many ways in which this administration and the actions are having impact, negative impact, in hurting my state. secretary jewell, you and i have had many opportunities to visit one on one, as well as your trip to alaska which i appreciate you making last week. and i don't want to make this personal. but the decisions from interior have lacked balance. and instead of recognizing the many opportunities that alaska has with regard to resource production, you have enabled an
unprecedented attack on our ability to responsibly bring these resources to market. the president has withdrawn over 22 million more acres of alaska from energy production just in recent weeks. and that has occurred on top of many other restrictions and regulations being imposed on us. it is occurred despite the tremendous energy opportunity and potential in those area, despite our no more clause despite the pressing need to refill our pipeline and despite strong opposition from most alaskans. the map i have behind us is one that my colleagues are going to become familiar with because i'm going to be pointing it out quite frequently. the colors on the map represent those areas that are withdrawn from any development opportunity
whatsoever. some are in fact proposed critical habitat areas and so they are not fully withdrawn at this point in time. but we have the anwar new wilderness proposal, the presidential withdrawal off shore, the npra on shore. the north basin on shore. then the critical habitat, the wilderness already in place, the national park as well as the federal lands. and i just remind my colleagues. this is 1/5 the size of the united states of america. so when you take off all of these areas for any development at all, how do your states -- how do your states operate? what do you do? what do you do? so i have expressed my
frustration, privately and in public. and i will continue to express my frustration and try -- try to achieve some positive results for the people of alaska and really for the good of the country. because as an energy-producing state, this is what we do. we share these resources with the rest of the country. i want to be very clear today that it is not just me that is banging the table. i don't think that i am over reacting. i think i am speaking clearly and articulating the concerns for most alaskans. we had opportunity last week to be in a northwestern community of katsibu. and the secretary joined us, the entire group, all three of us. the governor t leadership of the house and of the senate,
numerous native leaders. and it was very clear that there is no daylight amongst the elected leaders in terms of how they are viewing these decisions coming out of the administration. so i just want to make again very clearly, enunciate very clearly, that i oppose this administration's decision on anwar, i oppose its decision off shore. i oppose its costly restrictions and endless delays within the npra. i oppose what it's doing to our plaser miners, timber industry and my other resources that are ready to provide good jobs to hard-working alaskans. the state of alaska was actively ignored. the north is slope borough.
and many of whom all asked for alternative in interior's anwar plan in claiming it requires a act of congress even though an act of wilderness requires the very same. the actions seem destined to shut down our trans alaska pipeline, weakening our economy, forcing our state to make steep budget cuts and really violating the promises made to us as state hood and then since then. madam secretary i had hoped that interior's budget would not make this situation any worse but it fails to clear even that low bar. it violates the budget control act, ignoring the statutory caps and proposing new spending as if weed we'd already lifted sequestration. it would impose billions of dollars ow new fees and higher taxes on the oil gas coal and
mineral production regardless of the consequences and it it would eliminate off shore revenue sharing which many of us believe should be expanded. the department did not identify realistic off sets for spending requests such as the national park sentcentennial. i personal was stunned to see interior's request increase by almost $1 billion on a net basis with no funding dedicated to cleaning up abandoned legacy wells which were drilled by the federal government. they walked away from it. they walked away from the mess and the responsibility. and we've been trying now for decades to get that cleaned up. beyond energy there is king cove. still totally unresolved. yesterday marked 14 -- 14 months since this road was rerejected and yet again we see nothing in the request to help those whose
lives are in danger. i see request for about $40 million for projects for tribal communities but by my calculation, that is about 12 times less funtding that was requested for international adaptation projects just this year alone o. so i can't figure out is why the needs of americans are coming second. interior considerations are hurting alaskans. you are depriving us of jobs, revenue, security and prosperity. but alaskans aren't alone in this. and i want my colleagues to understand that i think what we're seeing in alaska is a warning for those in the west. and the fact is almost every other western state already has multiple legitimate complaints against the interior. in wyoming and idaho it is the sage grass. in utah and colorado it is interior's refusal to facilitate
oil shale development. in arizona the permitting of new copper mines. across our states accept for alaska where there is no production on federal lands. this administration is actively impeding many of the best economic opportunities in the west. it is depriving thousands who live in our states the ability to find a good job, earn a good wage and live a good life. as chairman of the the committee and the appropriations subcommittee with control over the interior budget, i do want to work with you secretary jewell. i do. and i want to work with others in the administration. but my complaint here is that you hear from us. but you don't actually hear us. and in looking at the request, i don't see a substantive effort to work in congress.
what i'm sigheeing is a disregard for enacted law. i think that has to change and the challenge really is to find common ground working together. but what we have seen is very, very discouraging. with that i will turn to the ranking member. >> thank you madam chair and thank you for holding this hearing. i'm pleased to see secretary jewell here and to be able to have conversation where mr. connor as well. in my view this budget represents a balanced and forward leaning proposal. it creates jobs and long-term economic opportunity. builds strong partnerships with the states and tribe asks the local communities when it comes to managing infrastructure and eco system and resources. i invests in the public lands for the next generation of americans to enjoy. it's probably no surprise that chairwoman and i have different views on a variety of issues being discussed here this morning. and many of those do relate to
the administration's energy and conservation proposals in the arctic. and secretary jewell, i know you have a tough job. one of the reasons i think the president appointed you is because you did have background as an executive in the oil industry as an engineer. so it does involve striking an appropriate balance e between increasing energy production, on shore and off shore in the united states as well as being sensitive to environmental areas. so i have long supported the arctic national wildlife refuge, especially in the coastal plane. so the fish and wildlife service rooenltly released a comprehensive conservation plan that takes important step of recommending a significant portion of the refuge to be designated as wilderness. this plan which is required by law and had not been updated for a quarter century i believe the new plan is more an accurate reflection of the values of which the wildlife refuge was
designated. so similarly there has been criticism in the new five year leasing plan for the outer continental shelf for excludeing too many areas from potential development and others have opposed the secretary resolution to open up areas that up until now have been off limits where the environmental damage would be extreme. so the sktry has done her best to balance competing interests. likewise the department's decision to improve was criticized on one hand for and on the other hand. yes you have a very tough day job. protection of these ecological treasures such as the actor irk national wildlife refuge is issue of the national importance. as a whole the president's propose 13 billion investment
represents roughly 6% increase over current funding levels. proposes significant funding increases for many of the important conservation programs including land and water conservation fund and the national park centennial initiative. i know there are many who believe protecting these public lands and increasing recreational opportunities are greatly important. america's public lands generate over $40 billion in recreation and use every year. a national park or hunting or fishing, the opportunities on federal lands are important. and we can also enmaintain -- the budget reflects strong commitment to increasing development. i want to bring up something though that is missing in the budget. secretary jewell is taking an important step in proposing
reforming on how colt royalties are collected on federal resources. i am concerned that the discussion ends there. you can typically lease a ton of coal off a federal land for one dollar of less. the taxpayers get one dollar. then years later we have to deal with with almost 2 tons of carbon dioxide from that one ton of coal. and the best guess is two tons cost the american public over 70 dollars in damages. so our fossil fuel leasing laws were passed long ago before we knew huh bad impacts were. i tend to follow-up on this issue. i know senator wyden and murkowski, the gao, the interior inspector general. many press articles have been raised about this issue and i plan to raise any own concerns about this as well. similarly i'm concerned we adequately consider the real impacts of climate change on our public lands.
this is an issue important to places like washington and alaska. to many places in our country. tacoma news tribune recently pointed out many of the related climate impacts a mount rainier national park and glacier melting and snow pack decrease as much as 18% between 2003 and t 9. so these are real issues. from mud slurries to parks and infrastructure. and we all know drought conditions in the west have demonstrated climate changes are present challenges to the businesses, government families. and because of this i'm pleased that the budget includes a 15% increase for climate related research. so i hope that this will help us bring better understands how to prepare far these issues. similarly issue of the wild live impact throughout the cuneate.ommunity. the carlton complex, the
destruction there represents i think 7% of all wild fire last year. 156,000 acres burned in 24 hours. so that is like 5 acres a second. again, the micro climates and changes are things that we're really starting to understand the grave impacts of all of these things. so my western colleagues have had -- have in recent hearings brought up various stories. so i hope we can get to some of these issues. but i also strongly support the president's proposal to fully fund the land and water conservation fund and provide permanent mandatory funding stream beginning next year. something many of our colleagues agree with but every year congress appropriates only a fraction of the authorized funding. and right now the unappropriated balance is almost $20 billion. so i hope that since this fund expires in september and we had a pretty good vote on the senate
floor that we'll work together in a bipartisan fashion to address these issues. and in the q&a i'll ask about the water shed and area to protect. after years of negotiation, users of irrigated water like farmers and ranchers and tribes and groups plan to develop and utilize in better fashion the resources of the yakima river water shed in time of increased demand and growing scarcity. the reason i bring this up is because i believe this effort will be successful and also believe will be a model for ow other water sheds in the west are experiencing these channels and how if they work together and we work with them we can have better resolution of these issues. so i look forward to discussing these and many other issues when we get to the questions i i appreciate your commitment and the president investing in our public lands for future generations. thank you.
>> thank you senator cantwell. with that let's turn to the secretary for your comments. thank you and good morning. >> good morning, chairman murkowski, ranking member cantwell and the other members of the community. thank you for the opportunity to testify today. joining me deputy secretary mike connor whose certainly no strange torer to this chamber or the senate. i've submitted a detailed statement for the record. this is a forward looking budget that provided targeted investments to grow the portfolio. creating jobs at home, build climate resilience and revitalize the national parks as they approach their 100th anniversary. it invests in science to help understand national resources on a landscape level and to apply that to better manage america's assets long-term. it also helped fulfill nation's
committees to native including helping improve education for indian children. way tonight to first talk investments in lands that make our nation proud. on the 50th anniversary, the budget proposes full funding of $900 million annually for lwcf programs. this is dollar for dollar one of the most effective government programs that we have. next year, we mark another important milestone in our nation's history. the national park service will celebrate its 100th anniversary, and this budget makes investments to launch a historic effort to celebrate and revitalize national parks and public lands. the discretionary and mandatory portions of the budget include $150 million matching fund to leverage private donations to parks. and $859 million to provide critical maintenance investments in high priority assets. additional funding of $43 million will provide staff to improve the visitor experience, and support the influx of
visitors after the centennial. the third milestone is the 50th anniversary of the voting rights acts. the budget proposes $50 million to restore and highlight key sites across the country that tell the story of the struggle for civil rights, such as the selma-to-montgomery national historic trail and martin luther king jr. national historic site. one of my top priorities is connecting young people to the great outdoors in our rich history and culture. we need to inspire and engage the next generation to be scientists engineers and stewards of our nation's most prized assets, particularly as 40% of the department's work force is soon to be eligible to retire. this budget proposes over $107 million for interior youth programs to provide opportunities for our nation's youth to play, to learn to serve and to work on public lands. we will accomplish this through cooperative work, with youth conservation corps organizations like the ymca and national league of cities and enlightened private businesses
supporting our efforts. next i want to talk about the administration's continued commitment to tribal self-determination and strengthening tribal communities. i recently visited arizona to launch the add m,'s native american youth listening tour. to give young people in indian country the opportunity to engage with cabinet members directly about the challenges they face. my recent trip to the arctic included a meeting with youth leaders, who are helping their classmates cope with personal challenges. across the federal family agencies are committed to working together to better coordinate our services to more effectively serve american indians and alaska natives. this budget holds the promise for a brighter future for the youth. and for improving the stewardship of trust resources. we're requesting $2.6 billion for indian affairs, an increase of 12%, which includes full funding of contract support costs that tribes incur as they deliver direct services to
tribal members. when it comes to powering our nation, the budget continues to invest in renewable and conventional energy so we can diversify our domestic energy portfolio, cut carbon pollution and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. a total of $658 million for conventional energy programs. the budget also invests in science and technology initiatives that will support energy development, create economic opportunities and help communities build resilience. the budget includes $1.1 billion for research and development activities that range from scientific observations of the earth to applied research to better understand problems such as invasive species and coastal erosion. the budget also includes a total of $147 million to help -- fund programs to help coastal communities such as alaska where i visited recently and how they're concerned for their personal safety, as inencroaching
storms threaten to wash away their community. finally, i want to touch on two other specific areas that are impacted by a changing climate. water, and fire. first, as part of the bureau of reclamation's $1.1 billion to fund indian water right settlements, ecosystem restoration, healthy water sheds and sustainable water supplies, the water smart grant program would receive $58.1 million to address drought another water supply issue across the west. second, this budget renews the call for funding framework for wildfire suppression. it would help ensure that the interior don't have to rob our budgets for fire prevention to fight the most catastrophic fires. in closing, this is a smart and balanced budget that enables the department to carry out these
important missions. i look forward to discussing these issues and the proposal of this budget with you in your questions. thank you. >> thank you, secretary. we will now go to a round of questions here. and i'll direct my first question madam secretary, relating to production on alaska lands. as i mentioned in my opening statements, i'm frustrated. i'm very frustrated with the delays, the denials, the restrictions that we continue to see from the department of interior. when you came before us as a nominee back in march of 2013 you made a specific commitment to me. you said, and i'm going to quote you here that we are supporting the desire that we discussed to continue to keep the alaska pipeline full. do you know where we are in
terms of the maximum capacity of the transalaska pipeline versus what we are seeing go through the line on a daily basis? are you aware of that? >> yes senator, i am. >> and you are aware that we are less than half full? >> i am aware of that. >> and i guess the question is pretty direct. do you believe that the actions that we have seen out of the department of interior of late are helping to keep the alaska pipeline full when npra withdrawals have moved forward, when the direction of end of january to put anwar into wilderness area, with indech knit withdrawals in the ocs?
do you think that's consistent with trying to keep the transalaska oil pipeline full? >> senator, i am fully committed to supporting the efforts in the north of alaska to keep the transalaska pipeline full. as you know i worked on this pipeline as a college student, as a petroleum engineer i understand how fields peak and crude bay oil field have been past their peak production for some time. i'm aware of that. we have, as you know, supported development in the national petroleum reserve. 22% of what is estimated to be the recoverable oil is in areas that are open for leasing. we've doubled the frequency of leasing in the npra lands under this administration. and we have recently approved conocophillips preferred proposal for drilling in the national petroleum reserve. offshore 90% of the estimated recoverable oil and gas will be available for leasing in the
beaufort beaufort. oil migration, based on request from native communities the hannah shoal area, which has a handful of valid existing leases which will remain, the balance of it we took off the table because it is very very sensitive ecologically, and other areas in the canyon, because of village concerns about things such as whaling. >> particularly, as it related to the hannah shoal, in terms of consultation most specifically with the whalers who use that area, that they saw no consultation there that that is part of the frustration, that areas that are then put into indefinite withdrawal are done so without consultation. that it's more than just making leases available, that if access is denied to those leases, it
doesn't make any difference whether or not you have sold those leases, it's all about being able to access them. let me move to a second question here. and this relates to my ongoing frustration on behalf of the people of king cove. you made that decision to abandon the opportunity for a roughly 300-to-1 noncommercial use road so that that isolated community to gain access to an all-weather airport. you made that decision december 23rd of 2013. do you know when king cove saw its most recent medevac? >> i'm not aware of the most recent. >> it was sunday. sunday night. do you know how many medevacs have been carried out so far in 2015?
>> i do not. >> there's been five. 23rd of february now there's been five. do you know how many medevacs were carried out last year? >> no. >> there were 16. six were coast guard ten were noncoast guard. do you know how many medevacs have been carried out since you rejected the road? >> no. >> 21 medevacs. seven coast guard, 14 noncoast guard. now, you and i know it's not the coast guard's mission to provide medevac services. but they do it because they are the only ones that are available to get in. and the easiest, most direct way to help save these lives would be this one-lane gravel noncommercial use ten-mile road that you continue to just ignore. so the question to you is what have