Transcripts For CSPAN3 Politics And Public Policy Today 20151228

The russians . Since you cant, then its how you do it with the russians rather than whether you give the russians a role or not give them a role. And nobody here is, looking at age bracket here very few would be naive, frankly nobody here believes that any of us pursue policy without an interest. We obviously have an agenda. Be obviously have an interest. But the Positive Side i see in all of this is we all know we cannot do alone. So there will be a point in time we will have to start engaging the other. And probably there will be setbacks where we move away. I am from my contacts with russians over the last year, they now clearly that there are major operations are not sustainable long term. That they need to move from that phase to political phase. And i would argue also, i dont think that the vienna talk ss took us to a new level, but theres no question that the intervention by the russians created a sense of urgency be it that the west got scared that theyre going to play their role again, or on the ground that all of the parties came together for the first time, the regional parties as well and came to vienna. Created a sense of urgency this issue has to be dealt with. So, in that respect i actually find the intervention as a tool not the policy. The intervention as a tool. I see it tactically having had a reasonably positive effect. Now is the policy right depends on what we do after intervention. In other words, if this ends up being different parties simply using force without a policy paradigm that we work on to try to solve the isis issue or syrian issue, youre going to have a lot of difference forces on the ground and its going to be very very dangerous for all of us. And therefore, the result would be this is more negative than positive. It causes all of the different parties, be that as i think Henry Kissinger said the russians have been out of the middle east or most of the middle east after 73 war and now back well, theyre back. And theyre back for a reason. Nobody else was there. And there were a lot of problems. But as a middle easterner, frankly, i will engage the west as much as i can to help solve whats happening in the middle east and i will engage the russians equally so to help solve that. From the middle eastern perspective, theres tremendous sensitivity and a little bit of exaggeration, frankly, how many conspiracies the west has managed to get the middle east to where it is. Im not a big conspiracy fan although you give me a lot of ammunition to and move in that direction. But nevertheless, we cant solve this without the west and we cant solve it without russia. So my argument to all of you, frankly, is yeah sure they have interest, sure they have agenda, sure they want to pla i a role there. But how can i take advantage of that rather than is this going to be a coalition where we all embrace the same goals exactly and walk at the same pace, or are we is our competition, necessarilying mutually exclusive we have to hurt each other more than we gain. It depends. If, i, frankly believe that engaging russia United States a good thing and i also believe that they understand that theres only so much you can do without engaging other parties but im not ready to say yet this step per se is the beginning 0 the solution. That depends on the politics after that be. Beyond the sectarian issues that are involved there instead of motivations of gulf states versus iran or iran sectarian motivations, do you detect in all of your travels across your region of the world much sensitivity to the humanitarian cost and attributing the blame for that to iranians and russians and assad, a lot of hofs thesis one point of world diplomacy ought to be at least agreement on that, on stopping the barrel bombing. Some sort of ceasefire that at least stops the depredations against civilians and its the clear the source russianmade aircraft, flown by syrian pilots presumably with russian materiel. But is there a sensitivity there . Is that not even in the secondary or tertiary level of conversation . Six seven months ago, i would argue that you could look at the center and east of the arab middle east as being more sensitive to western interventions, and russian interventions and the center to the west more sensitive about the russian intervention. Now, whether its because of real politic or otherwise, there stills a lot more sensitivity regarding the russian intervention in the western part of the arab world particularly the gulf. I think theres a larger degree of real itchismism, can they be pushed in the positive drixds . Irection . How many arab lead beer leaders been there . We dont agree on everything they do, we dont disagree on everything they do. Cant we afford to do it without them . If we could, id do it without them and the americans. But we cant. Sure. And i actually believe that while they may have policies, that we differ with they are rational people pursuing those policies. I believe in the value of diplomacy trying to engage them because i have no other alternative and, secondly, i am ready to have a for living in quote unquote the aviation term is in an open society or own skies, there will be competition. It doesnt really concern me much. But the point i think is middle easterner, we have to emphasize much more, is that the debate shouldnt be aabout whether it is whether it affects western interests and russian interests but it should be focused first, not exclusively, first, does this help solve the problem of the region . Thats my part of the departure. Part of that leads me to come to conclusions that are completely real politic do i think we can i mean, if there was a clear solution to how we move from where we are in the tragedies in syria to a new syria, wed do it but there is no clear solution. Even if you drew it up, and i can draw up a couple of farm laormulas the process of getting there is complicated. One of the issues raised, how long first of all, does or does it not, then how long if he does aboutbashar stay . Clearly negotiating about a new syria, it shouldnt be reinvention of the old syria. But to get there i cant simply talk to my friends. I have to talk to the other parties on the ground. And as angry as i understand and i respect and i agree with the syria opposition in their anger with bashar, there are a lot of other despicable characters frankly, on the ground that are of tremendous threat to the middle east. So again, its not im going to talk to these and im going to talk to the others. It complicated. Because of the complexity we need to engage each other as mature rational people understand i may differ with you on some interests but nevertheless its better to engage you rather than say your interests are different from mine and therefore we wont play cards. Before we turn to broader questions and discussion, if i may take the privilege also of asking you nobody mentioned the word turkey which along with egypt and the arab world is close to my heart, a lot of my professional experiences there it seems to me there has been a major turn in turkish relations a dramatic one i was there until a year ago, we had putin visits back and forth between thenprime minister and later president people around now president erdogan praising putin to the skies publicly. And then very dramatic turn even before the late november shootdown of the airplane in russianturkish relations, going back to almost a cold war kind of rhetoric making us all rather anxious. Any insight or comment on that . How that is playing, how that is factoring into mr. Putins outlook on the region and what hes trying to do in syria . Or even prospects for managing it . I would not say that mr. Putin has changed his agenda due to the shootdown with turkey. I think that inevitably before turkey can be an ally in this fight and what happened to the incident with russian airplane is one look, it just benefited mr. Putin because it enlarges his strategy of confront confrontation with whomever in who challenge russia. In the russian political opinions conflict with turkey, this is more complicated than syria. Mr. Putins policy of countersanction on european union, closing egyptian flight for tourists and now once again prove that russias strong, can somehow in all abandon economic relationship with new one who can challenge the russians. From my point of view what is going on with turkey, from moscow, it seems so, its just another kind of propaganda from mr. Putins side. If i can add if you read what mr. Putin said yesterday in his press conference about turkey and the United States im not going to repeat it it wasnt very polite but sort of again, linking turkey with the u. S. And so turkeys now, again, part of the general, you know propaganda that you see in the russian tv and what the russian officials are saying about the west being out to threaten russia and theyve even had things on russian tv suggesting it was the u. S. That told the turks to do this. Really . Yeah yeah. Between maybe not turkey and u. S. But definitely between turkey and but nato is the u. S. Exactly. And as far as the other russian airplane that went down over sinai, looks like two sides are overcoming that . Which two . Egypt and russia. Different sides. The fact is plane went down. There is an official Committee Investigating that. And theyre bound by only coming up with public statements once they have conclusive evidence. So i say this from past experience having followed the egypt air crash way back in 99 they cant come up and say we expect this or we think its this. They have to say this is the evidence that says soandso. They will ultimately come out much later than intelligence sources or other government officials. Russians have said that they think its a terrorist act. So in terms of the public statements theres a difference between russians and committee. But the Egyptian Government has not said anything because thats not it role per se. Either whatever it is, its a tragedy and we need to find out what it is and whether done by a terrorist or not, its important to find that out. But nobody has questioned that if there is terrorism in this, and we havent denied that as egyptians, we will make that announcement frankly in many respects. Its never going to be an excuse what we use cynically. But if it is clear that a terrorist, if thats much clear answer than if you say, well, somebody got through your security system. So theres no reason to hide this. Countries are moving toward collaboration on getting improving security so that aviation yesterday i saw something in the media that we invited eu Security Team to come in and check the airport processes back home and the airport facility seemed to have passed that test. Look, we are a nation that will only really thrive if we have tourists. We need to ensure tourists feel comfortable beyond how much it cost us. No question we will make extra effort to ensure that. If no further interaction among panelists ill throw it up to the audience. Well try to move around. Maybe judith . Yes. If you can bring the microphone. Thank you. Very good panel. Id like to address my question to you, but let me start by saying that, clearly, the misconceived strategically catastrophic war in iraq by the u. S. Disrupted an unstable status quo and made the arab transition which was necessary eneverybody vittable more vicious, violent faster virulent, everything now can say about it probably helped create isis. Nevertheless, when we look at the problem the lack of arab leadership, arab willingness to participate and help, whether its militarily helping Syrian Refugees except jordan and lebanon, the weakest of the weak, the gulf states are totally absolutely completely preoccupied with their allergy to iran, they dont talk about syria or isis, the lack of cohesion in the arab world that e egyptian is a big country with big u. S. Armed military, maybe you cant do it without the International Community and its now become russianamerican problem, but how do we do it without something, something coming out of the arab world . So far theres next to nothing. Well, theres no answer to the problems, but i wouldnt say theres annex to nothing. The proposal to create an arab Rapid Deployment force was one step towards well we need to have the capacity and the tools to deal with threats are not always call on others to do that. That has not gone through. It up to debate. Some countries are not comfortable with that. Two days ago the saudis came up with another coalition about terrorism. Thats just the beginning. But it reflects that the arab world is starting to look at what can they actually do. If i mean, i understand that theres no question that there is the humanitarian pressure and i think as you said correctly, jordan and lebanon have carried a lot of this egypt, though it not on the border has actually 400,000 Syrian Refugees now we need and the kuwaitis have an annual conference where they provide Financial Support for the refugees is this going to be completely alone by the arab world . No. Therefore the point i made at the entd 0 of moo commenty comments so must disrupt among the parties in the region or some of them and the west, some of them and russia, unless we have a better political understanding of what are the limbtationlimitations of the competition, unless we have this grand not grand bargain, maybe thats too much but a grand understanding, youre not going to get a strong commitment to arab forces or strong commitment for western forces or Russian Forces thats sustainable. All of this formula will fail unless we have a Stronger Political understanding. Thats why as much as id like to say i have the answer im going to do it, i was hoping to say i dont have the answer i need to talk to people that will compete with me and may have different agendas. But thats my point. If i think this is what your point is judith, if the point is arab needed to do more ive been saying thatzt8z for years now, so i have no problem with that at all. Fred, you have been calling for an Arab Stabilization force based largely on arab contribution, with jim zogby had his annual poll come out a week or two ago, which showed substantial public support, for me a little bit surprising more than i detected. Any assess on the prospects. I mean if if the United States were to mount the kind of Diplomatic Campaign i think it should, as an al ternive to the president being forced to deploy american soldiers and marines in the wake of a parislike incident occurring in the United States i think the going in assumption would be certainly at the leadership level in the region, a very, very, very suppressed appetite for putting Ground Forces into Eastern Syria against isil. This is an appetite that would have to be stimulated by the United States. I dont i would not, in the least, try to shortchange or understate that the difficulty this particular administration would have in making the case that were in this for the duration, well provide the leadership and well put skin in the game. So there may be, you know, there may be substantial and growing Popular Support for decisive military intervention against isil but my going in assumption is that the leadership level, the appetite for ground intervention would be very much under control. You dont have your hand up, and youre part of the next panel, but for an eastern arab perspective, any comments on either this issue or any or ones weve got to hear . You want to save it for the next panel. Ill save it. Over to this side. Sir, with your hand up. And back and then hell come around. David colton, my question to the panel from my question to the panel is to hone down on the question of quoten quote the russian offensive. Let be very candid, the russian offensive has been a flop to date. The progress has been measured in scant kilometers. They have maybe about 50 aircraft sorties, mostly with unguided bombs and if you recall under the soviet union there were 8,000 troops stationed in syria at the time. If you look at the Current Ratio of the russian military, which is about 71, 61, and you actually work through the military requirements to maintain a sustained operation, i put to the panel, putin cant do it. More importantly, the iranians have taken enormous casualties not just among senior generals but at the Second Lieutenant level. If the panel may know, the iranians are talking about on state tv and there are reports that the iranian troops are actually pulling out, meaning that the russians themselves are going to have to add more ground pounders. And i put out to you how much of what were seeing with putin is the same kind of bluff he tried to daunt with ukraine . He has tried to get away with a lot on cheap. And i throw it to the panel out, when push comes to shove, how much can he really do . You want to respond to that . Its a very good i think its a very good question. I agree that for hoping to achieve some credible result it would impose much more deploy much more forces there. Actually, i would say that economically, and financially, it not a big problem for russia to send Ground Troops to syria because the operation looks quite cheap compared to russian expenditures. Whether they will do this or not, my personal position is that they actually will try to do this in some foreseeable future. The minister of defense said, the minister of defense, he will go i think it may happen. Of course i know there are a lot of casualties and russians are starting to question. But the logic of the operation, as it unfolds, asks mr. Putin to intervene on the ground. So this is my point. Of course, they will not succeed, this was my point, no one can succeed in fighting Islamic State, as the point, except the local forces, which i think are the kurds. If it is the west and russians want to go further with this they should promise kurds independent state there on some lands, so kurds can secure from the influence of the Islamic State and this can help. Neither russians or americans will succeed. My point is russians will try to start it. How to go further, i dont know. Isnt the point that selfof you have made earlier including fred, that the russians are not trying to succeed against isis, really, as proprofessor also said. Each they engage in the ground operation, they will it will be what i would like to say, very small point putin seems to be very controversial in his attitude towards extremists, it was mentioned extremists. Because it was known that there are 5,000 to 6,000 people having russian passports or postsoviet citizenship fighting on the part of isis in syria. All of the people werent there in the last two three years. So with isis having getting around in syria russians have succeeded in squeezing out the terrorists and extremists out of russia. Isis, forcing them to come back. I think putins completely counterproductive in what hes doing in syria for russian domestic security. But hes doing thats what he does. Mark . Quickly. Talked about he prefers to fight them there, fight them here, in russia. And i think that you know, as i think part of the problem is that as we ourselves learned, just because we intervene in iraq doesnt mean that jihadists cant attack targets elsewhere, but i think the real basic problem that putin has is that his government does not treat muslims in russia decently at all, in other words, that no no matter what they do if theyre successful in syria, this is a huge problem that theyre not dealing with successfully in russia itself. Im not sure there are many russian muslims who are basically agitated by whats happening in syria but they are agitated by whats happening to them in russia itself. It seems that putins operation in syria doesnt change this at all. Miss . Hello. My question is my question is about putins goals in syria and assad. You said that he wants to keep assad in power and also said that he always supports legitimate regimes and always tends guard for legitimate regimes which is not true because you probably remember the first visit when elected, the georgian president , he was quite warmly accepted. And moreover, russia supported all of those three president ss. So according to this, we cannot say that putin always stands guard for legitimate terms which makes him what he is a great opportunist. When he says that he wants to keep assad in power, it just his voice and we all know hes a liar. And this is not this is not my criticizing him. Its just matter of fact he lies constantly and publicly. A question as well as comment . The question is, how do we beav he wants to keep assad in power. Done you believe hell give up assad as soon as it will be as he needs it . Thats my question. Thank you. First i think you misunder stood me. I said putin wanted to project to the world this is what he says, that russia supports all legitimate rulers particularly in that part of the world. I didnt say i agreed with that but thats certainly the message that russia is sending to that part of the world is we support leaders in power and were against regime change, all right . Thats point one. No, i i also said maybe i didnt make that clear i think for the moment, russia does want to shore up assad, going back to the previous question, you know whether the russian operation has been successful so far or not. It been successful if as much as russia intervened because it was concerned in the summer it looked as if the assad forces were weakened and there might be the government there might be in danger. For now, right assad seems to be stronger and the russians have achieved limited goals. That doesnt mean if at some point they think its in their interest to support another leader, again as long as they have a say in who that leader is and they can be reassured their influence in syria will last, it not tied to the man. And mr. Lavrov himself said that, theyre not necessarily tied to president assad. But for the moment thats where they are. And i think in these talks in vienna that certainlys a starting position. Also havent detected from the panelists any suggestion that russian calculations are anything but hardnosed and based on power and interests. Right. Nothing emotional about pointed out in one of the papers, thats right theres no love lost. It just that you know, at the moment this is the government thats in power. A matter 0 of principle. Yeah. Gentleman who has had his arm up. Im afraid its going to cause pain. Bill jones from executive intelligence review. Given that most of the speakers were singing from the same song sheet or beating on the same drum i might say, i wanted to ask a contrarian question. One is with professor hof, ambassadors hofs presentation a fallacy of composition in talking about what the russians and i raunianranians have to do in order come to the solution. If you see the russians and iranians connected at the hip i think it a very big mistake, because they both have their own interests, common interests and different interests and the only way we can deal with this situation with russia especially where we have a much broader spectrum of interests and issues that have to be dealt with trying to see them together i think, would be the biggest mistake in dealing with this problem. Secondly, i would like to say, the question is, how much putins actions are actually pro active, that is, we have to go into syria to assert our great power aspirations and much was reactive . Remember what was happening in syria right before that but was that the u. S. Was considering having a nofly zone which of course would put that conflict in a much different context. We would be on the way towards regime change by setting. An area which was under our protection. And i think putin, if seeing this, made russians moves in order to counter that. If you see that that way, that was a brilliant move on his part to throw a Monkey Wrench into what was going to be a Dangerous Development in syria. I remember when he came to kennebunkport, i was up there at the time and talked with bush after 9 11, he said, let Work Together to deal with this terrorism problem. Bush said, yes, well do that. But everything that happened after that and i think my microphone is going everything after that was expansion of nato it was the missile defense. We didnt follow up on that at all, i think that was the biggest mistake in the world. So there is a certain sense from russia they have put out the hand of friendship a long time ago, putin personally, has been rejected all aen lo enenlong right down to a question. Those are the two questions id like to throw on the table. Did you pick on something you can respond to . Yeah. When my papers published youll sigh more nuance in the question of the russianiranian relationship in all of this. They do come at this from an entirely separate set of interests. Where they come together, at least for the time being, at least for the foreseeable future is in the per pet situation of assad in thus touches on nabis point. Im in favor of engaging the russians on the question of syria. This is within thing, i think, for all of the shortfalls in american policy over the past few years, this is really probably not an area where we can be criticized. For most of 2003 john kerry chased Sergei Lavrov and when he finally caught him he got a peace conference in geneva that was an utter fiasco. Were chasing again. Weve got a vienna process we can all hope and pray succeeds. What i would like to so and i i do think were a very much in Crisis Management mode i entirely with nabil nobody has the silver bullets that going to solve this problem. Were in Crisis Management. I think one thing that is absolutely essential for the United States, russia and iran to agree upon is that attacks mass casualty attacks on civilian populations are inadmissible under International Law and must stop now. I must say even if even if even if the fact were in the middle of the premier humanitarian abomination of our time even if this Means Nothing to individuals, how how in the world how in the world is this vienna process going to get anywhere with civilians on the bullseye, okay . How how how does an opposition delegation come to the table and deal in the spirit of goodwill and compromise and political arrangements while its constituencies is being blow awayen a enen on a daily basis . How do we fight isil when this marvelous recruiting tool, provided by the assad regime remains in effect . I mean this is why, i think, this issue between the United States, iran, and russia, really needs to be addressed up front otherwise this vienna process becomes an elongated permission slip for continued slaughter, which will stop anything good at all from happening in syria. The lady here who had a comment. Brenda schaffer atlantic council. The cornerstone of u. S. Policy on syria has been assad must go. We heard this from president obama and its probably one of the only issues that had bipartisan support during the Obama Administration that everyone in the u. S. Agrees assad must go but the debate was about how much u. S. Support for him to foe. But weve never challenged the basic premise russians came in 2011, told the u. S. Assad must go strategy was dangerous, lead to destabilization. They have legitimate interests there. They were dismissed by the u. S. One their interest and also their warnings. Maybe we can, four years later, can we say we need to challenge this premise and maybe the russians got and right and we should have listened to them . I think, given the role of Bashar Al Assad in making isil possible in syria and his ongoing role in keeping that Organization Healthy and well inside syria, tends to reemphasize the fact that if we had had a strategy to implement the president s words had we implemented that strategy, wed be in a much better place than we are now. But we didnt. So the question still wry mainremains. Whatever the reasons up to now, we can kick that to the next panel, too, where do we, collectively, we and the russians go from here . Think other responses to that point . I think you raised brenda a very good point. I think, from the Russian Point of view, what they saw is that the syrian problem could be resolved the way chechnya was resolved, in other words, that the Regime Forces come in essentially demolish the islamist opposition and establish an authoritarian peace and the same thing could be possible of syria. It occurred in algeria, this is sort of the model. After all, why should the west complain . We dealt with assad regime before, what was the difference between what assad was doing and what the algerians did or what even quite frankly in the view of what they did in egypt, see it sort of similar. I think what freds indicated is, the continuation of the assad regime is not a recipe for stability. It is a cause of instability. And i think thats the trouble, is that theres no there is no bringing stability about. I have a feeling what were going to see in syria is what everyone doesnt want, that is like iraq, its just going to be de facto splitup, though it might be more complicated in syria than in iraq. Youll have little fiefdoms well have a kurdish area maybe a sunniarab area, isil will have its area and all of these little and maybe neighboring states will have influence as well, thats what were going to see even though thats not actually what anyone wants. If i can jump in on this i think the issue of whether assad goes or not and when he goes for that matter of course, has been a sensitive issue, and it will continue to be a sensitive issue. You keep asking the question you wont get an answer unless unless, we clarify what happens after. So my suggestion is to do some reverse engineering. In other words, how do we ensure that syria remains syria irrespective of who the syrians decide to be president , im not addressing that issue per se. And the reason i say this is if you if you develop the formula or the guarantees for what will be the day after you factor in what are the interests of the regional stated, what is the interest of the states outside of the region so that makes addressing the question of okay, who is the president . Something where it more rational than if you say he must go, he must not go but nobody knows what will happen the day after. I can tell you, ive done this for a long time, hundreds of scenarios of what would or would not happen and theyre all conflicting with each other, large number of them. So it is a question, and its going to be a sensitive one and always a problem until it answered. But i think you can get closer to the answer if you try to develop the structures for syria, for the new syria, and then work back to okay, he will be the president and how do we choose that president. This reference to the morning after will resonate painfully with the doctor and myself when we try to deal with the same issue with respect to Saddam Hussein, saddam must go, and the thesis of the United States work with iraqi democratic opposition to Saddam Hussein was to construct this idea of the morning after, what would it look like, what would the future look like. You regret that. I dont regret that. I think it was our failure to actually succeed in having a clearer vision of how shiites and kurds and sunnis and christians and all of the rest would hold that out. Thats the problem. Exactly it was. Anyway, weve got a couple of minutes. Why dont we see if we can put together whatever questions are there and then any panelist that would like to sum up we can do that. Let me take the farthest backhand that i can see, gentleman with the beard. Yeah, you. Yours is the last hand i can see in the back, and ill work forward. Name and organize, if any. From the turkish organization. Yesterday we had a teleconference and this guy mentioned that the number of people fleeing syria has increased actually and increasing. A lot of them actually are going to turkey 2. 2 million refugees in turkey. I was wondering, i never heard anybody talk about russia, if theyre so interested in helping syria and assad are there any syrian refugeed in russia . What has russia been doing in terms of refugees. Thank you. Sir . Gentleman with the red tie . Ira strauss. Id like to thank our egyptian colleague for asking us to be mature, and i think thats very helpful. We have heard theres a red line on the part of the administration against effective use of American Force and that seems to be accepted. If were going to be mature and accept that we have to accept we make xroe mycompromises with other peoples interests. We have to make real choices. For four years weve played a part in keeping syria immeshed in civil war. Mr. Kerry one point that is his objective, keep it in a stalemate because he didnt want our side to win by force. Obama said he doesnt want our side to win against ice cspan by force. Others on our side can but we cant. It doesnt do any good, he says. Which is a very peculiar argument. I think theres a real need for maturity, and i would like to see us doing as our initial presenter said to do the right thing and put enough force behind our hopes to give substance to our hopes. Wed still have to compromise on some of them. In the absence of that well have to compromise with more things that seem unpleasant to us. I want to suggest the grand cool ligs coalitions might not solve everything. You didnt say that, that seemed to be the logic, its not worth it to have a grand coalition against isis because we might disagree over the future of syria afterwards which wouldnt be a new cold war as Eastern Europe was. So i think thank you. Rethink that kind of statement. Thanks. Thank you very much. One more comment only. I think were going to have to close. One more gentle man here, with the white shirt. Dimitri, thank you very much. You said you believe the middle east cant do it without the west and without russia. Do you think that the general population supports that idea or theres people that just want the west and russia to get out . Do you think islamist extreme itch has increased over the last 10, 20 years or they have more avenues and resources at their disposal . More comments on use of force and questions and popular opinion . Like to sum up and respond to any of these . Sure. Ill sum up by answering that question. I dont want to repeat what i said before. I generally believe that the educated public understands that in our world cannot solve it alone and therefore engaging both the russians and the west, america and nato and europe and all of that is the only realistic way out because, frankly, there is no support for the arab world alone taking all of the risk nor a sense that they can actually succeed if they do this. I think that exists there. The emotional public dislikes russians and americans equally. Although americans win a little bit on that. But thats not really where my concern is. My concern is who are activists serious people that want to engage this. I argue, the rsh rashational thinking is we need to to this together. If i can address the point about the grand coalition. I think that the troubles there are certain pattern we see in International Relation its not a question of what one wants to happen or not and the fact of the matter is that the grand coalition against hitler did not lead to a grand coalition going forward, that once the purpose of the alliance came to an end the alliance came to an end. And i think that we have to expect something similar here. I think especially with putins call for the grand alliance, in particular, he worked against the west in ukraine in particular, in 2014, 2015 and simply turn around, no were going to be can we be allies together in syria . I have a feeling that wont be the end of the story. As soon as he can pivot again, he will do so. I think the lady understands the nature of mr. Putin. So i think that thats you know, we have to be very realistic. Yi yes were all against isil but if its defeated were not going to be agreeing on what should be continuing in syria at all. Maybe ill take off from that and go back to the question of what the russians expected in 2001. First of all the language about the antihitler coalition was used in 2001. So we should ask, why did it work in 2001 when mr. Putin went to crawford and met with mr. Bush, you know, the relationship really seemed to be on the uptick then. That was because the russians were very helpful to the United States in the initial phase because we agreed on who the enemy was, it was clear, there wasnt a difference there, and it was in russias interests to have the u. S. And its allies to go in, take care of a problem that obviously plagued russia and russias neighbors itself. We should try to work with the russians. But to have a successful coalition like this, wed have to agree on who the enemy is and i think the panel has shown we dont agree who the enemy is except saying in general its Islamic State but we have different deaf nations and we dont have the trust which in a way we did have in 2001 because of everything thats happened in recent years, particularly with whats happened in ukraine and where the russians failed to say what they are really doing there. That is why yes, we can try, but the conditions for instance that make cooperation and counterterrorism cooperation in 2001 possible are not there now. Okay. I will just react on the question about putinbush connection and the possibility of cooperating with u. S. And russia. Yes, i agree that were some prerequisites for cooperation in early 2000s but you mentioned nato, other things i think there have been exhausted since then. And now, i we can try to raise the connections but i think its too late. Mr. Putin is on completely different course than he was 15 years ago. So i cant see any productive coalition under such circumstances as today. And the question about Syrian Refugees in russia there are not so many of them. I would say there are very few. Said about russia clalhsia claiming to help syriaa no. Russia doesnt care about Syrian Refugees because moscows helping assad, not syria. Concluding comment . Just a couple of comments. I would say, first of all if a if a coalition of truly professional military forces in sufficient numbers, cannot defeat isil in Eastern Syria, what has this world come to . Do we think do we think local indigenous forces are going to be able to do the job if professionals cannot do it . There was an interesting article in the Washington Post the other day, i believe by liz sly, not 100 sure, about the effect of sustained russian bombing in northern syria, not far from the Turkish Border how this is obstructing, rather decisively inflow of humanitarian assistance to needy syrians at particularly the worst time of the year with the onset of winter. This is this winter. This is horrific. I think discussions about the future of assad, about the composition of the opposition delegation, these are all obviously very interesting discussions, but to the extent that they dominate this vienna process to the effect that the protection of syrian civilians is excluded from the discussion and excluded from diplomacy, this process, im sad to say, would go nowhere. One would hope and think logically that there ought to be a focus everybody can agree on. I would like to thank everybody. We need to reconvene very promptly at 11 20. Well see you all in 15 minutes. Ung thank you to the panel. Tonight on American History tv on cspan 3 we remember the holocaust. A u. S. Army film about atrocities at nazi concentration camps and an oral history from a prosecutor at the nuremberg trials. Tonight on the communicators we take a look at how the Music Industry works. Associate professor of music business at Berkeley College of music discusses how new music platforms have impacted the way musicians are paid and what Reforms Congress can implement to make the payment structure more transparent. Joined by jim phillips, reporter for communications daily. Certainly the narrative of artists and song writers feeling like they dont understand where their money is coming from is not new but i think we are living in a world today where everything is trackable. So the nsa can know where i am know what you are talking about on your cell phone. There is no reason that artists and creators shouldnt be able to know where songs are being streamed and how they are being paid for that and not on a significant time lag, either. Watch the communicators tonight on cspan 2. As 2015 wraps up cspan presents Congress Year in review, a look back at all the news making issues debates and hearings that took center stage on capitol hill this year. Join us thursday at 8 00 p. M. Ooesz eastern as we revisit mitch mcconnell. Pope franciss address, the resignation of john boehner and the election of paul ryan, the debate over the nuclear deal with iran and reaction from congress on Mass Shootings here and abroad gun control, terrorism and the rise of isis. Congress year in review on cspan thursday at 8 00 p. M. Eastern. Congress begins the second session of the 114th congress in january. The house is back for legislative work on tuesday. Among items a budget reconciliation bill that would defund planned parenthood. The senate has approved the legislation and the president says he would veto it. The Senate Returns the following week, monday january 11. Senators will consider a u. S. Circuit Court Nomination in pennsylvania and a bill from kentucky senator rand paul that would require an audit of the federal reserve. The house is live on cspan. The senate live on cspan 2. The House Oversight Committee Earlier this month held a hearing on the screening process for visitors to the United States. Witnesses from the state department and the department of Homeland Security answered questions about the Visa Waiver Program, the refugee vetting process and information chairing between agencies. State department issued an additional 531,463 immigrant visas last year alone. Those 10. 5 immigrants joined an estimated 20 million other whose entered the United States without visas under the Visa Waiver Program. Our government issued 1 there are an estimated close to 10 million Border Crossing cards in circulation today. Some individuals were granted employment authorization in fiscal year 2015. In 2013, the last year for which statistics are available, the United States granted asylum status to 25,199 people. And for fiscal year 2008 to 2014, the number of individuals claiming a credible fear of persecution in their home country increased 921 . If we can put that graphic up, i would appreciate it. We are seeing a rapid rise in people coming to the United States stepping foot into our country and claiming asylum. Lets also understand the surge happening on our borders. Just today on the front page of the Washington Post, it has a front page story about the number of children that are coming across our borders. You can put that graphic down. Thank you. The total number of asylum applications between fiscal year 2010 and 2014 nearly tkoubd, going from 47,000 plus to over 108,000. And 69,933 refugees were resettled in the United States just last year were. Thats an incomplete picture and evidently not enough for the Obama Administration. Not everyone who is here came legally or obtained lawful status once they got here. In fiscal year 2013, 241,424 im sorry, 241,442 people were processed for extradited removal. In fiscal year 2014, Border Patrol made 486,651 apprehensions. Still theres up to an estimated 15 Million People here illegally. It is estimated that 40 of those folks entered legally and simply did not leave. These numbers beg the question of whether the United States is doing enough to vet people who are applying to come to the United States. Our world is changing. Along with it, the types of threats we encounter. Certainly with our experience with 9 11, the boston bombers and the more recent terrorist attacks make the immigration screening process is a critical element in protecting the American People. Reviewing the backgrounds of Foreign Nationals before they come to the United States is crucial in understanding who is entering the United States. The recent terrorist attacks in San Bernardino and paris highlight how these background checks have to be we saw some of the most horrific terror episodes we have had in our nation recently in california. 14 people murdered, wounding 21 more. It was the deadliest terror attack on u. S. Soil since september 11th. Tashfeen malik came to the United States on a fiancee visa before getting her green card. She reportedly passed three background checks as she immigrate to the United States from pakistan. They checked her name against Law Enforcement National Security data bases. Then they used her fingerprints to do a criminal background check. Finally, when she was applying for lawful permanent resident status dhs checked her out again. She cleared each check. No regular flags were raised. It was pretty clear looking back it was wellknown among friends and family she supported violent jihad against the United States. It is being reported this morning and i think its msnbc as early as 2011 Homeland Security was preparing to check social media. And yet Homeland Security decided that was a bad idea. Almost every story ive ever heard, read, and seen is even about the president has made comments about terrorists who are really good at using social media. Back when Homeland Security was thinking about using social media, the decision in Homeland Security was, bad idea. They made the wrong call. They made the really wrong call. It is unclear what dhs will actually do when itten counters fraud via social media or other took place it uses for applicants seeking admission to the United States. It is my understanding Homeland Security might start looking at it. These are publicly available information. Under current law, overstaying a visa, committing fraud is sufficient to render an alien deportable. But now such conduct is not necessarily a priority for removal. All too often we hear stories of offenders who are encountered by Law Enforcement. And then jeh johnson puts out guidance and says even if you commit sex crimes, even if you do certain on other crimes, dont necessarily need to deport them. Theyre here illegally, they commit a crime. And Homeland Security is saying use discretion. We may not want to deport these people. It is not a threat to Public Safety. You tell a woman who has been raped that it is not against Public Safety to have that person. Were going to go through that in this committee here today. The joint subcommittee hearing last thursday left many frustrated about the countrys ability to address the growing threat. Homeland sent Deputy Assistant secretary for Screening Coordination Office to this committee. It was an embarrassment. As the Deputy Assistant secretary her biostates she, quote, deters, detects, and denies access to or withholds benefits from individuals who may pose a threat to the United States of america. She couldnt answer a single question. I dont know. Ill have to get back with you. All the promises she made, by the way, she didnt fulfill. She couldnt even tell me if more people come in by land, by sea, or by air. She thinks most people come in to this country by air. And shes in charge of screening. You can see why were scared to death that this administration, the department of Homeland Security, the state department is not protecting the American People. She has worked in that office since 2007. The basic lack of information when a senior official raises concerns and inspires little confidence. And americans have legitimate concerns approximate the threat that radical extremists pose to their safety and the safety of friends, families, and communities. I would like to completely opening remarks with a video. This is of the National Security adviser and then followed up by youll see. It will speak for itself. President obama reconsidering his plan to accept 10,000 syrians the next year . No, chris, we are still planning to take in Syrian Refugees. We have very robust vetting procedures for those refugees. It involves our intelligence committee, sets of interviews. Bringing Syrian Refugees into the United States . No, chuck. We have very extensive screening procedures for all Syrian Refugees who come to the United States. There is a very careful vetting process that includes National Counterterrorism, department of Homeland Security so we can make sure we are carefully screening anybody to the United States. Are you confident enough in our vetting process as the United States brings Syrian Refugees into our country to pledge that this will will never happen here . With respect to refugees, we have the most extensive security vetting that we have ever had to deal with Syrian Refugees coming to the United States that involves not just the department of Homeland Security and the state department, but the Intelligence Community, National Counterterrorism center so anybody who comes to the United States, we are carefully vetting against all our information. I think thats the challenge were all talking about is that we can only query against that which we have collected. And so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in syria in a way that would get their identity or interests reflected in our database, we can query the database until the cows come home but nothing would show up because we have nothing on that person. You can only query what youve collected. At least the fbi director calls it like it is. At least the fbi director tell us candidly what is happening out there. And in the case of the most recent terrorist attacks, when the person maybe hasnt been here or there are other circumstances, you can see why we have great cause for concerns. We have a series of questions today. What i would like to do is introduce the panel, allow for Opening Statements. Then the Opening Statement from mr. Cummings and we will go to questions from there. I will hold the record open for five legislative days for any members who would like to submit a written statement. Were now going to recognize our witnesses. Were pleased to recognize honorable allen burr son, chief diplomatic officer for the office of policy at the United States department of Homeland Security. Honorable leon rodriguez, director of United States citizenship and immigration services. Honorable michelle thorn bond, assistant secretary of the bureau of consulate fairs at the United States department of state. And honorable ann richard, assistant secretary, pure of Population Research gees and migration, United States department of of state. We welcome you all and thank you for being here. Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses are sworn before they testify. If you will please rise and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear is or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth . Thank you. Please be seated. Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. In order to allow time for discussion, we would appreciate if you would please limit your oral testimony to five minutes. The entire written written, the statement will be made part of the record. Well do the four Opening Statements. And then when the Opening Statements for mr. Cummings and then go to questions from mr. Mr. Burson, you are recognized for five minutes. Good morning, mr. Chairman, members of the committee. The last time i had the privilege of being here, it was to discuss the issue of libya. Im happy to be here this morning. Look forward to our dialogue. I also in this 15th year since 2001, since september 11th, 2001, want to express the support and sympathy that i and my family feel and im sure my colleagues on the panel share and our colleagues across federal service for the families of those killed in San Bernardino. And for the families and victims who were injured, 21 victims injured in that terrorist attack. Our written testimonies and the statements submitted to the committee describe in some detail the systems that have been put in place for screening of terrorist travel. What id like to do in the four minutes i have left is to give you an overview of this system and the four major shaping factors that built it since 9 11. I point out this was a system that was built under the leadership of two president s, one republican and one democrat. It was built under the leadership of four Homeland Security secretaries, two democratic and two republican. It was built under four secretaries of state, two republicans and two democrats. What we faced a after 9 11 were a situation in which we did not have a unified system. I was the United States attorney in southern california. And i recall in the 1990s there were terrorist were watch lists in each of the various departments. In the aftermath in the 14 years since 9 11, we have built a system that brings together the information of the United States government and constitutionalizes in a multiagency way. We have the National Counterterrorism center, the nctc, that maintains the tie, terrorist identity database. Environment. Tscb managed by a multiagency terrorist Screening Center, terrorist watch list. We actually have brought the system together. And we do communicate. And i trust during this hearing we will have an opportunity to discuss that. The second major shaping influence was we realized that 98 or 99 of all travel into the United States is lawful. We need to see facilitation and trade as being the same process. We need to introduce a Risk Management into the trade and travel vetting systems. The third influence was that we recognize in the global world where there is a massive instantaneous constant flow of goods, goods, ideas, that in fact, protecting the homeland. The Homeland Security enterprises inherently Trans National. And we build on out a system in which together with the state department, the defense department, the intelligence agencies, dhs, as a presence abroad to watch the movement of cargo and movement of persons towards the homeland. And fourthly, what we have seen recently and that is shaping the system now, is that in fact, we have a Trans National threat that is cyber enabled and that our terrorist enemies are kpael actually using the internet to radicalize those who listen to their message and are receptive to it. So at end what we have built and what we need to continue to build hopefully in a bipartisan fashion the system that protects the American People by building up a homeland enterprise that takes into account predepartured toward the United States, departure towards the United States entry to the United States and exit from the United States. Lastly, mr. Chairman, i would be, with all due respect, i would be remiss if i did not say on behalf of kelly ann barisi, i know of no other that i am responsible for who is more dedicated, more knowledgeable about screening. The fact of the matter is, mr. Chairman, she came to this hearing expecting to talk about the Visa Waiver Program. And she was hardly questioned at all about it. I make no apologies for her. She is first rate. She is an american. Shes a patriot. And i regret that you came away with a different impression. Thank you, sir. That we will be discussing. Mr. Rodriguez, you are now recognized for five minutes. Good morning, chairman, Ranking Member, members of the committee. One of our very most obligation as Public Servants is to safeguard Public Safety and National Security. That is particularly true when we are reaping benefits and privileges. So when we give somebody a drivers license, we require a test so we know that that person will drive safely. When we give professionals licenses, we test them to know they can practice their provisions in a manner that poses minimal threat of harm. We work in every respect in what we do to minimize risk. That is particularly true in the area of citizenship and immigration. And we grant citizenship and immigration benefits. We take a number of safeguards to protect the National Security. An observation last week at a hearing before his subcommittee resonated with me particularly. And he challenged us that when incidents occur, we would be talking not just about what we are doing in response to that incident but we were really thinking in terms of prevention of future challenges. And as i reflected on that, that in fact, has been our posture and will continue to be our posture in the future. And i will give a few examples. We are as secretary johnson has frequently observed in an evolving threat environment. More and more the threats are not the threats posed by organizations acting in a concerted manner, but increasingly those threats or the threats of isolated individuals or isolated groups of people perhaps inspired by the organizations that present the threat to our country. In light of that combination of threats, the organized and also the isolated threats, we have been taking a number of measures over the past few years to reinforce the work that we do. One clear example is the institution of the interagency check that we apply in refugee vetting and in other environments. That gives us a very organized, very methodical way to query against Intelligence Data bases when we are screening particular individuals. So i know there have been discussions about individuals who entered the United States at earlier times. Some of those individuals were not subject to that sort of screening. They would be today. And in many cases, that would have prevented their entry. When we screen Syrian Refugees, we prescreen the cases before interviews are conducted. That is another innovation in the spirit of prevention. And we have been piloting the use of social media for the vetting of particular categories of people seeking individuals. There have, in fact, been three pilots that uscis has used with its Intelligence Community and Law Enforcement partners to screen particular categories of individuals seeking immigration benefits. We have already concluded two of hose pilots which operated on a relatively small group of people. We have learned the number of important lessons from that pilot, which no doubt i have have an opportunity to expand on those in this hearing. We are in the midst of a third pilot which, in fact, has been applied and is in the process of being applied to literally thousands of applicants for immigration benefits. So any thought that the department of Homeland Security had simply foregone the use of social media for purposes of immigration screening is a mistaken thought. We have not spoken about it in great detail because the fact is the more we speak about it, the more who use it will crease to use it, knowing we will be examining that content. What happened in San Bernardino is a tragedy. And we should take no other lesson from what happened in San Bernardino that we need to look at what we do and make sure that Something Like that does not happen again. That a tragedy of that type does not happen again. In fact, we have been working together with partners at the state department, partners elsewhere in dhs, the Intelligence Community, to further look at opportunities to strengthen the manner in which we screen individuals. As i have read news accounts of of what occurred in San Bernardino, i am struck by the fact that among the victims of San Bernardino are individuals who news reports related were immigrants themselves, would come from all over the world, who would come here to live lives of service, serving the most Vulnerable People in our society. And i do feel that my oath applies to those individuals as well as all the victims of San Bernardino to protect them. While immigration is a privilege to any one individual, it is not a luxury for our country. It is necessary for the vitality of our economy. It is necessary for the stability and unity of our families. It is fundamental to our values. And i pledge to operate my part of the immigration system in a way that maximizes every opportunity we have to protect the American People, to protect our National Security. Thank you, chairman, for inviting us here today. Thank you. Ms. Bond, youre now recognized for five minutes. Thank you, chairman, Ranking Member cummings, and distinguished members of the committee. As has been described, the partner of state, along with Partner Agencies throughout the federal government have built a layered visa and Border Security screening system in order to review and assess the visa eligibility and status of foreign visitors from their visa applications throughout their travel to and arrival in the United States. We take our commitment to protect americas borders and citizens seriously. And we constantly analyze and update clearance procedures and look for new ways to do an even better vetting process. My written statement, which i request be put in the record, be describes the screening regimen that describes all of these categories. Although the tragedy of the terrorist attack in San Bernardino sparked particular interest in the fiancee visa, we apply equally rigorous security to all applicants, all travelers to the United States. The vast majority of visa applicants and all immigrant and fiancee visas are interviewed by a consular officer. It provides the extensive Training Provided to the officers, a strong emphasis on Border Security and fraud prevention, interagency coordination, how to be conduct the interview and how the name check process throughout the interagency is thoroughly done. All applicants data are vetted in this interagency process in data bases that contain many records. Regarding whom derog tore information exists, including the terrorist identity database which was referred to. We fingerprint and screen against dhs and fbi databases of known and suspected terrorists, wanted persons, Immigration Law violators and criminals. That testimony from this submits the application for a washington based interagency review conducted by federal Law Enforcement and intelligence agencies and department of state. Individual overseas posts we have screening done by Visa Security Program staff and patriot system. Works with the visa security we use our authority to revoke visas when indicated. Since 2001 the department revoked over 122,000 visas for a variety of reasons including for suspected links to terrorism. We are engaged with interagency partners in the senior level review of the process ordered by president obama and i expect that recommendations developed in this review will apply to all visa screening. We are also working with the department of Homeland Security and bureau of Counter Terrorism at the department of security screening of Visa Waiver Program travelers and enhancing data sharing commitments requiring for membership. We are investigating the applicability, risk screening and credibility assessment tools. Mr. Chairman Ranking Member cummings and distinguished members, the department of state has no higher priority than the safety of our fellow citizens at home and abroad and the security of the traveling public. Every visa decision is a National Security decision. There is nothing routine about our work. We appreciate the support of congress as we continuously work to strengthen our defenses. Mr. Chairman, i know you have visited sections in mexico. I encourage everyone of you to visit when you are abroad to meet with our staff and to observe the process that applicants undergo. I look forward to your questions. In fiscal year 2015 nearly 75,000 refugees of 67 different nationalities were admitted for permanent resettlement including 1,700 syrians. In fiscal year 2016 the president determined we should increase the overall number to 85,000 including 10,000 syrians. It adds diversity and strength. Resettlement is offered to refugees among the most vulnerable. People for whom return to syria would be extremely difficult if not impossible such as women and girls at risk, survivors of torture. Let me make clear u. N. Ref ye agency does not determine who comes into United States. That is made by department of homeland resettlement is a deliberate process that can take 18 to 24 months. Ref ugees undergo including the national Counter Terrorism center, fbis Screening Center and departments of Homeland Security, state and defense. I want to make clear that we work in very Close Partnership with u. S. Cis and so it is our offices are in constant touch. Our responsibility is to help prepare refugees for their interview. Dhs has the heavy burden of determining whether someone qualifies for refugee and screening. No one has a right to come to the United States as a refugee. So if there is doubt they screen people out. These safe guards include finger prince and lengthy interview by specially trained officers who scrutinize the explanation of individual circumstances to ensure the applicant is a bona fide refugee. The vast majority of the 3 million refugees admitted to the United States have proven to be hard working and productive residents. Many take the tests to become citizens. Some serve in the u. S. Military. Im happy to answer any questions you may have about our program or our contributions and diplomatic efforts related to humanitarian efforts around the world. I thank you for calling this hearing and i think if we were to as i listen to the testimony there are two words that ring out to me and i hope that it will be the theme of this hearing. And they are two words that i repeat to my staff over and over and over again. Effectiveness and efficiency. Effectiveness and efficiency. I believe that i speak for every member of this committee when i express our con demnation for the actions of these two terrorists syed farook and Tashfeen Malik who murdered innocent people in cold blood and injured many others in their sickening rampage in california just two weeks ago. Certainly we send our prayers to the people who were injured and to the families of the innocent victims. We know their lives will be changed forever by this horrific act. We also extend our profound thanks to the hundreds of Law Enforcement officials, emergency First Responders and Health Care Providers who responded then and are still responding today to this act of evil. This attack was unusual because it was carried out by a husband, a United States citizen. And a woman who came to our country on a fiance visa, married this man and then had a baby with him and that baby was only six months old at the time of the attack. The director of fbi testified before the senate that based on the fbis Ongoing Investigation it appears that both mr. Farook and ms. Malik were radicalized. Director explained yesterday, however, that contrary to the suggestion that a simple Google Search would have revealed maliks radicalism they did not post messages on publically available social media. Director stated and i quote we found no evidence of posting on social media by either of them at that period of time when they are reflecting their commitment to jihad, end of quote. Director also said this, and i quote, i see no indication that either of these killers came across our screen trip wires. He also stated he had not seen anything that quote should have put them on our screen, end of quote. Unfortunately, due to the extremely short turn around for todays hearing we do not have anyone here from the fbi. Mr. Chairman, i ask unanimous consent to place this fox news story into the record which is entitled San Bernardino terrorist didnt post public messages. Without objection so ordered. Thank you mr. Chairman. If a search of public social media would not have prevented the attack, the question before us today is what else this is the question that is so vital to our witnesses and we need to know this. By the way i agree with you when you refer to distinguished gentleman for South Carolina about preventing things but the question is what else have we done to identify Foreign Nationals seeking to enter the United States who pose a risk to our National Security . Again, effectiveness and efficiency. For example, should the United States agencies attempt to access Password Protected platforms like the ones reportedly used by ms. Malik . Which Law Enforcements believe malik apparently used. Which agencies should do it . State department . Dhs . Fbi . Our intelligence agencies . All of them . And once they conduct the screening, how should they report the results . Should they go into the national Counter Terrorism centers database, the fbi terrorist screening database or others . And should federal agencies be able to Access Communications over social media accounts of u. S. Citizens who sponsor Foreign Nationals . And if so under what circumstances . These are all very difficult questions. A lot of the answers may involve classified information. I understand there are several pilot programs already in the works. I also understand the president has ordered a review that is currently ongoing. Our job is to grapple with these issues and develop solutions that help protect this great nation. The American People expect aggressive and urgent action to screen people entering the country to ensure that they do not pose risks to our National Security. Effectiveness and efficiency. For these reasons i believe one of the most constructive steps our committee can take today is to examine various information databases used by federal agencies to make sure sharing as much information as possible to promote National Security. I thank our state department and dhs witnesses for being here on such short notice. I look forward to your testimony as you address that question of how we can be more effective and efficient. With that i want to thank you for your courtesy and i yield back. Thank the gentleman. We recognize the gentleman from ohio for five minutes. You said that the witness we had last week was a patriot. No one is questioning that. Then you also said she came prepared to answer questions about the Visa Waiver Program. I want to read from the transcript. How many Visa Waiver Program overstays are there and she said i didnt bring that number. Second question. How many overstays may have travelled through syria before they got here. Her response i dont know that number. Final question how many people came from the Visa Waiver Program country here today and may have been in syria or iraq . I dont have that answer. She wasnt prepared to answer questions about the subject. Does she work for you . Yes, sir. Why didnt you come last week . I was in london with secretary johnson at the g 6 plus 1 meeting. Are you prepared to give us numbers today are you prepared to give us answers today . With regard to overstays as was indicated, mr. Jordan, this has been an issue spanning both republican and democratic administrations with regard to the overstay how many are in the country today . If you give me an opportunity i would be pleased to respond to your question. The overstay report which has been a subject of attention to this committee and the congress if you would like to understand why that report has not been produced despite 20 years of requests im asking for a number. How many Visa Waiver Program travelers are in the country today . The overall number. There are 20 million persons who enter the country each year on the visa waiver. Do we know how many are here today . I cannot give you a number given the way in which the that 20 million, how many overstays are here in a years time. We track overstays and we are prepare ag report for that. We do not have a number that has been let me ask this. Of the 20 million here in a year how many may have been to syria and iraq . Some travel and then come to the United States in the Visa Waiver Program . The Homeland Security investigations, the Counter Terrorism and criminal exploitation unit has opened up a number of investigations with respect to the number of syrian do we know a number . You said 20 million in the Visa Waiver Program in a year. A bunch of those overstay. Im asking of the people on the Visa Waiver Program travelers do we know of those in syria and iraq sometime in the year before . There were 113 investigations opened up by Homeland Security investigations with regard to that matter. And the bulk of those investigations have actually been closed and, in fact there are 18 Ongoing Investigations associated with syrian nationals. That one 13 number specific to the question i asked. People on the Visa Waiver Program who did travel to syria or iraq . I do not have a specific number. Im telling you that on the overstays that were identified could be higher than 113 . I am very eager to answer your question but i cannot i have interrupt me every time. There are investigations over the last year in fiscal year 15 there have bn 118 investigations. I cannot tell you which of those entered the country on the Visa Waiver Program. I can tell you those were overstays identified as having come from syria. Of that 118, 11 were administratively arrested and the remainder closed with the exception of 18 Ongoing Investigations which are connected to syrians and overstays. Just a few seconds. Let me switch subjects. The news account i think was msnbc top officials at department of Homeland Security considered specific policy for foreign visa applicants but that proposal was ultimately rejected. Were you part of the team that put together the memorandum and rejected the idea of screening potential entrance into the country . No, sir. I was not in the office of policy at that point. I do know secretary johnson encouraged the components of dhs to continue the work referenced by director rodriguez to continue the work they have been engaged in with regard to social media. I am aware of no memorandum secret or otherwise that bars components of dhs from using social media. Real quick. One different subject but in your Opening Statement you mentioned the last time you testified in front of congress you testified about libya. Do you think the situation is more stable than it was in 2011 or less stable . The hearing on which im asking your opinion on the stability . I would defer to the state department. My personal opinion which is not relevant it is not anymore stable but had nothing to do with the issue. Isis is in libya, as well . Gentlemans time has expired. I will defer to the state department on that judgment. You are the chief diplomatic officer for policy. I think your opinion is relevant. What is that question . The question mr. Jordan asked you you, what is your opinion of that question . With isil . Yes. Or with libya . Both. I gave the answer with regard to libya. With regard to isil i think isil remains a substantial threat being treated as such by every rational political leader i know across the world. In addition to the european leaders secretary johnson met last week in london. Gentleman from massachusetts is now recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Good morning. I want to thank the witnesses for helping the committee with this work and for your service to our country. I do want to go back about the overstay issue because last week ms. Barisi who is a fine person, she didnt have her numbers person with her. She had four staff with no numbers for us. That was tragic unresponsive to a huge numbers of questions unfortunately. Im sure she is a fine person. We are after the facts and she didnt have many. So she told us last week we had to recess the hearing so she could call the office. She told us that 20 Million People a year come in under the Visa Waiver Program. She said that there was 2 overstay each year. That is what she told us which comes to 40 0,000 overstays per year. And you are telling me Something Different here today . The estimate is in that range. Im good with that. I dont want to use up my time on that. I thought i was going to come out with less facts than i came in with. I did want to say this issue of the overstay and submission of a report which is underway and i its been underway a long time. Im not a young man so i dont want to do more on this because i dont think that is happening. We have been promised that information for years and that aint happening. When i see the report i will believe it. Fair enough. Let me go on. Look between what director has said yesterday, look if you talk to the folks in our National Security community, the Islamic State is using social media as a main recruiting tool. This is their game. This is their world. They are doing this all over the globe. Yet, when we look at what department of Homeland Security is doing we dont have a regular widespread requirement that our people review the social media of people coming from trouble areas where you have a lot of terrorists places like pakistan afghanistan syria, iraq and tunisia, parts of north africa where you have a lot of support for radical jihad. We are not reviewing the social media even though that is the world in which they operate. We dont regularly review that. That is a major problem. So, look i think if someone is applying for citizenship to the United States, it is entirely reasonable that we ask for their social media contacts, their information that these people dont radicalize overnight. A lot of them have had public statements, not their private emails. I know that Tashfeen Malik maybe her stuff was private, we should have got that anyway. We want your social media, private stuff and public stuff. That is reasonable to ask people coming from countries known to sponsor terrorism. Why arent we doing that . Why arent we asking people for i represent massachusetts. 52 of our colleges request all the information on that social media from applicants to college, half of our employers do. They want to know what is going on on your facebook, your social media. If the employers if half the employers in america are doing that is in the private sector, if the colleges are doing it for students why the hell wouldnt department of Homeland Security do it for someone coming from a terrorist country or a country that sponsors terrorism coming into the United States . It would seem to be a no brainer. But its not happening. Its got me worried that we are not doing any of this. Anybody care to respond to that . I can certainly take part of that question congressman. I think as i try to make clear in my opening remarks we have been piloting and the number of cases touched by very few. It is a pilot program. I know you have pilot programs there. But we have millions and millions of people out there that want to come into this country and were doing a very small bit. We dont even look at their public stuff. That is what kills me. Dhs doesnt regularly require that their Administration Officers for people coming, we dont look at their public stuff. To be clear, we are moving both in the refugee and other immigration context we have been doing some of it. We are working you have three very small pilot programs going. We have talked to the folks overseas about what they are doing. It is not regular. Its not routine. Its not widespread. Even what is going on in beirut. We havent had a regular vetting team there in a year. They fly in and fly out because of the conditions there. I dont want happy talk. And sometimes i hear a lot of that that we are doing fine overseas. When i drill down and go to beirut when i go to the Syrian Border what you are telling us is just happy talk. They say they dont have the resources. They didnt have the resources when you have 160 applicants a year, excuse me, a week. Now they are getting 16000 a week. And we have the same amount of resources we had before to vet them. It troubles me greatly. I dont think we are doing a good job. I think we can do better. I like to get the resources and the people to vet people well and then if we deem them eligible then you can take them in as refugees. We can be smart and then we can be compassionate. Right now it doesnt seem like we are doing either. I yield back. We recognize the gentleman from michigan for five minutes. Mr. Rodriguez going back to that issue that my colleague, mr. Lynch, broached with you, dhs has indicated it began three pilot programs to include social media screening and visa adjudication process in the fall of 2014. Has dhs had a policy preventing from reviewing applicants social media posts . I am not aware of a policy that prevented it per se. There have obviously there are various privacy and other issues that govern but there has never been a privacy per se and during just about the entire time that i have been director and secretary johnson has been secretary what we have been doing is piloting and developing the capacity to use social media in a thoughtful, functional manner. The per se bothers me a bit. Per se bothers me a bit. You are indicating there is no direct policy preventing. I am not aware of a policy. Why wasnt it happening . I would not read too much into the phrase per se. I am not aware of there having been a policy that prohibited the use of then we have conflicting reports, then, in the last several days that there was and there wasnt. I know full well during my tenure as director we have in fact, been developing and piloting that capacity. Its a good policy that we look into social media. I do believe and i believe many Intelligence Community partners have the same view that there is information of vetting value that may be garnered from social media. And it will be ramped up . We are in the process of doing that as we speak. Why did dhs wait if there are three basic pilot projects, wait until 2014 to create the pilots . The activities with regard to social media have been cis, mr. Rodrigues agency, Homeland Security investigations or i. C. E. Or cbp have conducted their activities. There was no headquarters overarching policy prohibiting that. To the contrary, these pilots have been going on under secretary johnsons leadership and he has encouraged the components to actually why did we wait until 2014 to initiate these pilots . Mr. Rodriguez, could you help me on that . Im sorry . Why did we wait until 2014 to initiate or to create these pilot projects . I dont know. Again, during my tenure i think we need if you can bring the microphones we have been busy doing this. So i am really unable today to speak to what occurred before. I certainly would be happy to get that information to the extent that its not privileged and get that before the committee. When could we get that . Were getting used to hearing we dont have that information here. I think for us here, the main point is we are doing it. One of the reasons i just dont know what occurred years before i got here. What we can say now is we are doing it. We are doing it in an abundant manner. We are looking to have it be useful for screening purposes. That seems to be the most important discussion. What happened three or four or five years ago, i cant speak to that. What are the results with what youre doing now . I think theyre there is less there that is actually of screening value than you would expect, at least in those small early samples. Some of the things that we have seen have been more ambiguous than clear. There are challenges in terms of people using foreign alphabets to post. Thats a capacity that will need to be developed. As everybody has observed, many of these communications, as weve now learned from the director may have applied in the San Bernardino situation, are private communications. Theyre not openly open posts. Those are challenges that weve identified. That said, i think we all continue to believe that there is a potential for there to be information of screening value, particularly as congressman lynch and i think you have also observed in particularly high risk environments. Well, i think recent events have shown that theres probably significant, significant, Important Information that we can get using, information gained from social media. We do not disagree. And we would hope that that would continue and we hope to get more answers and not to push back, that this is something we dont know, we have to know that and when we hear, as we saw on the video earlier, the white house representative telling us that were doing everything, our vetting process is secure, and then we see the results that are horrendous take place like in San Bernardino, weve got a problem. I yield back. Gentlemen yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from california, mr. Lieu, for five minutes. Thank you. Let me first thank the panel for their public service. My question is for mr. Rodriguez but first i want to make a, statement. I am honored to be a u. S. Citizen. Thats because we get amazing benefits of being a citizen of the most amazing country in the world, one of which the constitution applies to you against your government. But for some time it does seem to me that the executive branch has been blurring the lines between u. S. Citizens and Foreign Nationals and sometimes got it backwards. Ill give you three examples. 2011 the executive branch deliberately, and i believe wrongfully, executed an american citizen via a drone strike. The department of justice has now said at least four americans have been killed by u. S. Drone strikes, four american citizens. Second example, the executive branch, through the nsa, has been seizing hundreds of millions of phone records of u. S. Citizens. They knew who we called, when we called, who called us, duration of those calls, and it got so bad that congress had to step in early this year and prevent nsa from violating the Fourth Amendment rights of u. S. Citizens. And then a third example, which is this social media. Theres been multiple reports, abc news says that a secret u. S. Policy blocks agents from looking at social media of folks seeking entry into the United States under the visa program. The hill report looking at visa applicants. Political says that secretary jeh johnson believes that there are privacy reasons for why dhs is doing this. Mr. Rodriguez, you mentioned again the privacy reason. And i just want to know, the u. S. Constitution does not apply to Foreign Nationals seeking entry into the United States. And so do not give Foreign Nationals seeking entry into the United States more rights than the american citizens have. If youre an american citizen, you seek a job in the private sector, Public Sector or my office, well look at your social media. The response i have from yall today, now youre doing three small pilot projects. That is not adequate response. My question to you is, you need to reverse those that policy if in fact there is a secret policy. Maybe there isnt. But, at the very least, you need to have a departmentwide policy that well look at social media not just three small pilot projects. I want to know why you cant, starting tomorrow, have a departmentwide policy doing this instead of having three small pilot projects. So let me be clear, first of all. There is not now, nor was there ever, a secret policy prohibiting use of social media for vetting. There needs to be a structure to these things. There needs to be a plan for doing these things. That is what we have been doing for many, many months now. In fact, a third of the pilots actually is being applied to thousands of individuals. I wont go into details beyond that. I dont want to tip people off as to what we might be looking at. I agree with you that u. S. Privacy structures apply to u. S. Citizens. They do not apply in the same way to foreign persons. There are numerous examples in the manner in which we receive people at ports of entries, what we do at our foreign posts that are evidence of that distinction. So i do not im not sure i accept the premise that somehow we are safeguarding privacy of Foreign Nationals to any greater degree, however, there are legal concerns that do need to be what are these legal concerns . We asked dhs earlier this week, give us the legal case or a provision of constitution that says theres any privacy, any legal concerns, with looking at anything related to a Foreign National seeking entry into the United States. I dont know where these legal concerns come from. I dont understand the quote that secretary johnson has been attributed to him saying there are legal concerns about scrutinizing web posting. What is that case yall are relying on . Again, i am not the privacy law expert for purposes of this hearing. In fact, there are issues that we need to make sure are satisfied with respect potentially to treaty obligations that apply, with respect to our own laws that may apply, a variety of issues and we are let me i would also add let me just suggest u. S. Constitution does not extend privacy protections to Foreign Nationals seeking entry into the United States. You need to not just have three pilot programs, it needs to be a policy of our government to look at social media and other publicly available information of people seeking entry into the United States. And with that i yield back. Mr. Lieu, i would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an article put out today, from msnbc you said at fox news im citing msnbc. Fair and