But first, paris. The news came out on friday. We went on the air, obviously. We still have to deal with it. I guess everyone has to deal with it. People say, trevor, what do you think . Its tough. I think our lives are defined by moments dinner with family, taking a nice drive together, friends gathering at somebodys house to watch ronda get kicked in the neck. And i think the reason its so painful is because often terrorism seeks to replace these moments with death and fear. We all are afraid. We replace that fear with anger a lot of the time. But i think what we should try to choose to do is not focus on the perpetrators, because every attack, whether paris, beirut, kenya, seems less about a specific group and more about an attack on humanity itself. One thing that made me smile is people in paris showed us the only way to overcome inhumanity is humanity. Taxies turned off their meters to get people home for free. Lines and lines of people waiting to donate blood. The thing that sum
The need to end our reliance on russian engines. We actually put our money where our mouth is. We added 133. 6 million on top of the 84. 4 million requested by the president to accelerate the development of the new rocket engine. 100 billion authorized by the Defense Authorization committee. So we are making certain that we are going to end this reliance on russian engines. The question is how we manage the space launch through several years of launches before we have that engine. We need to do it without jeopardizing our National Security. The general provision which i referred to allows for space launch competition in 2016 without regard to the source of an engine. It will permit real competition on four missions in 2016, and it will avoid trading one monopoly for another. I think ive explained how weve reached this point. I think there is good faith on i think there is good faith on i think theres good faith on both sides. I dont question the motives of the Senior Citizens in senato
Not than any other country. I really want to understand again a little bit more clearly your assessment of pakistans progress in cooperating with the International Community on Nuclear Proliferation concerns. And also, the second part of that question has to do with recent media reports suggesting that our administration is considering some kind of Nuclear Arrangement with pakistan. Im not really clear what is a Nuclear Arrangement. And if we are considering, is pakistan really a trustworthy partner, again, in that . Again, like other members, the Nuclear Proliferation concerns are very troubling. Thank you, congressman. And we share your concern about the scope and pace of Pakistans Nuclear program. We do have an active dialogue on nonproliferation issues. We have a security has pakistan increased the rate of the production of Tactical Nuclear weapons . We continue to have concerns about the scope and pace, sir. I think thats probably all i can say in this particular venue. But i did
Look at india, we look at pakistan, the relationship is incredibly important. Particularly as the changing mission in afghanistan is the role of pakistan and india in stabilizing the region is incredibly complex and important. Its an honor to welcome ambassador olson to the job. I understand this is your first month on the job, so looking forward to hearing the testimony. Looking forward to working with you and looking forward to furthering the relationship between the United States and south asia and stabilizing the region. So thank you. Thank you so much, dr. Bera. And the chairman would like to express his sorrow for not being here, mr. Ambassador, but he is lea leading the charge on the house floor on four bills from our committee. Thats why hes not here and why mr. Engle is not here either. Were now pleased to be joined by Ambassador Richard olson. Ambassador olson is the special representative for afghanistan and pakistan, immediately prior to this appoint mentd, ambassador olson
A Technology Perspective is an incubator to continue. Particularly for the sorts of technologies that are can be sized for special operations, special operations units. But at some point i think to the extent the growth of special operations will whether it continues or not, i think that has much more to do probably with the evolution in the future security environment as anything and that the more those sorts of forces are seen as the optimal sort of instrument to deploy in a particular conflict the more likely we are to see them grow but i suspect the rest we might see some growth in the rest of the world. Since jerrys right that the russians arent only using precision strike reflects their interests, and when they use force might be slightly different than the United States in some cases. But mimicry certainly happens and to the extent that the countries in a military sense sometimes do wish to emulate the american model, i think you do see a little bit of that in the growth of spec