it always was russia's imperial russia, soviet russia, post-soviet russia. it was always the same system of power, vertical power. extremely hierarchical. tell me if i'm wrong. i'm a historian. it always was -- it's textbook of propaganda. it always was a country of propaganda, and it also was a country of human rights violation. so all the three statements, what you guys are trying to avoid are, like kind of we can see the historic heritage we have and we still carry it on. so why do we have a hope it will be different? i mean, after the breakup of the soviet union, we have the dream, now it can be a democratic country. nothing changed. do we really have any arguments to believe that conflict can be changed so drastically, so there will be no, like, imperial style of internal policy? it will be respect for human freedom of media and respect for human rights? and belief in that. and how long will it take? particularly the united states and other countries, every effort so far we have tried to put there have failed. thank you. >> okay. the microphone is here.

i wonder if you could talk a bit about russia and what you think the actual threat is that russia poses to the alliance right now. what are putin's goals? are his actions arguably our response, as some argued years ago, to nato's expansion right to russia's borders. is there a limit to russia's desire to expand its own sphere of influence, or do you think they see it as a defensive mechanism? mr. stoltenberg: i will say some words about russia in a moment, but i will start a commenting on the introduction to the question, because there is concern whether part of the debate in the united states provides reasons for concern in europe, that the united states is not focused on europe, that the united states is not going to continue to be part of our transatlantic alliance and so on. first of all, i would like to say that the first time i visited the united states was in 1980. i was 21 years old -- no, not 21 years old. i visited the united states with my father and we traveled for a week around the united states. and then, the main issue then was the concern that the united states was not g

russia and had a america, cold snap or permafrost? >> consider russia's annexation of crimea and further aggression in eastern ukraine. we can all stop by what the s violated. i five if i could have been ukraine, a good happen to any nation gathered here today. two centuries, a relationship with russia has been complicated. we have always been rivals who depend on each other. although we are allies out of necessity in world war ii, mistrust dates from the russian revolution, when the allies invaded russia out of fear of communism, which continued in the cold war. u.s. russian relations have improved with the new approach to russia. however, let them if you didn't has revived -- however putin has revived an age of military aggression. >> in late august, we specifically asked the russians, what are you doing? they said, according to the administration, well, we are fortifying our interests there. there just as scared of islamic state as you are and we think something needs to be done. the adopted a sort of watch and wait, and i think it

would invade russia or make some restrictions against russia, like russia should never have becauseweapons, solely i don't believe it will work. there are some people in russia who hope for a popular revolt that would be supported by the --t or financed by the west the west should do anything to read russia of putin. what i think the west should do -- everything to change russia, to help russia change. the initiative should still be , if the russian people initiative cuffs on the outside, russians will never forget that. it will always remain in that historic memory and they will remember -- we were changed from the outside. there is a difference. there is a difference. i understand the logic, but there is a difference between not to germany -- nazi germany after the war, japan after the war, and today's russia. we may regret that but there is a difference. yes -- i do believe that russia should receive a very hard lesson, a very hard lesson. >> how many times? >> no, from itself. probably the previous lessons were not enough. having what we have for it now. but i am definitely against any

russia, the whole thing, i think senator donnelly talked to you about the russia flyover. would our ships, were we in the right to shoot down if we desired to do so with their aggression? mr. scaparrotti: not knowing the complete circumstances i can't answer that. mr. manchin: turkey has taken action on russia before and i , think russia understands that turkey would continue to take action. i think there's a concern that we won't and they were wanting to see how far we would go and i'm not advocating that we should have shot the plane down , but i understood that secretary kerry described it as a reckless, provocative and dangerous act. and he was not wrong in saying the u.s. ship would have been justified to shoot down the russian plane. mr. scaparrotti: i don't have the detailed information to make that call. it is absolutely reckless, unjustified and very dangerous when you've got our operations going on as well. mr. manchin: is russia just pushing the envelope and the limits of confrontation to test the western resolve or the united states' resolve? mr. scaparrotti: i

usually it is caught in russia yet it comes from china, gets reimported to russia, sometimes in the same vessel. we are drafting a law that says fish should be delivered to russia fresh, not frozen. it would not be possible any longer to freeze fish and deliver frozen fish. we hope this will benefit the russian industries. we also hope to provide penalties to companies who engage in this kind of ctivity. 70% will be provided specifically to industries that will use their own ships and boats for fishing, and those who meet those conditions will eceive an additional 20% quota on top of what they already have. violators of these arrangements will be stripped of their yeah tas entirely. you said that ships are decrepit, they are deteriorating. out of the 20%, we intend to invest 5% in upgrading and repairing existing fleet and 15% to build new ships. now the government is drafting that law, it needs to finalize it. there is endless deliberation right now among various ministries and agencies but i believe that the draft law should become law, adopted and ratified by the state duma, during th

between what russia said it was going to do and it did. they said they were going to contribute to the ending of the syrian civil war. and that propping up assad militarily is not doing that. and has not done that. and they also said they were going to fight isil. they were mostly propping up assad, no doubt about it. >> thank you, thank you both. >> thank you all. what russia said it was going to secretary carter, have you ever heard of the pyd? sec. carter: i have, yes. >> who are they? sec. carter: they're a kurdish group, one of several -- a number of -- >> have you heard of the pypg? sec. carter: i have heard of them, also. >> who are they? sec. carter: another kurdish group. >> aren't they the military wing of the pyd? sec. carter: they are, yes. >> is that right general dunford? gen. dunford: that's correct. >> they're a leftist syrian kurdish political party founded in 2003. reports indicate that they're aligned or at least have substantial ties to the pkk. is that true? sec. carter: yes, we have -- >> is the pkk a terrorist organi

russia. last year, i spoke in washington about its destabilizing behavior. its military buildup and its aggression against ukraine, and i outlined how nato is responding. we are making significant progress. nato is becoming more agile, and we are increasing our readiness. we are reinforcing our collective defense, the largest collective defense since the end of the cold war. nato's response force is now three times bigger than it was before. we have set up a chain of new headquarters in the eastern part of the alliance, boosting our ability to plan, exercise, and reinforce if needed. the european reassurance initiative launched two years ago has been key. i met with president obama on monday and thanked him for his strong leadership and strong commitment. i welcome his plan to quadruple funding for the european reassurance initiative. this will increase our ability to strengthen the alliance. this increase of the european reassurance initiative would mean more u.s. troops and equipment on eur

russia is in syria already. let them fight isis. >> while some approaches are completely passive, some are much more aggressive. >> i would not talk to him at all. we've talked way too much to him. i would begin rebuilding the fleet. >> it is really about finding the right balance and delivering tough messages with consequences for russia when they overstepped the bounds of international norms like they did in ukraine. >> i have been, i remain convinced that we need a concerted effort to really up the costs on russia and prudent. >> we needed to make it clear to russia that their invasion of ukraine cannot stand. we will never recognize their occupation of crimea or eastern ukraine. president obama: the russian economy has been seriously weakened. foreign investment is down, inflation is up, the russian central bank has lost more than $130 billion in reserves. russian banks and firms are locked out of international markets. >> keep it off a lot more he could chew -- he bit off a lot more than he could chew. russ

so russia is in the game again. there were traditional advantages but the intervention was intended to secure the regime and it did well. it actually moved from being on the verge of collapse to taking the fresh initiatives and it's now probably taken from isis. if that continues for the next couple of years mainly russia and iran would continue fully. the regime would perhaps not reestablish full control but certainly consolidate itself in more than 40% of the country then is controlled recently. >> the united states is gearing up to fight isis and let's assume for one moment they are defeated into th and then you lh essentially the rebels i and thn the regime is by russia so how do we get the solutions on that point? >> if you bring the parties to the table your position would insist with no intention to the parties supported very firmly by iran. they are less interested but more in the survival of the regime as a political diplomatic solutiothe politicaldiplomatic e peace conference is not likely and may control

proof thato coup regime. >> that is russia's main argument. what has regime change done in the middle east? whatthe u.s. in iraq and happened in libya, the collapse of the state. whether or not you like assad, this is keeping them together in any hopes of staying together. >> the problem is, it is not stable. i realize it can get more chaotic, but the sectarian war that contracts foreign fighters, the number of migrants, those kind of things are affecting european security. d staying will mean instability. the question is whether we can live with that or not. >> good afternoon. instability you all described in syria, iraq, to., is it in our interest facilitate and develop an alliance with the sunnis and draw a russia and iran into conflict there because we don't want them to dominate that area? can we do that? are the sunnis capable of doing it? neutral need to take a obama like position and say we are talking to everybody but not committed? to --avid, do you want david: i've taken the position in some places that the obama administration has

whatever china is doing, you get russia on board. if you focus only on the nuclear piece, they managed to get all of those guys lined up, so now they have the makings of a nuclear deal. so what they did with this nuclear deal, the technical stuff is very straightforward. at the time they started the deal discussions, the iranians could have r two made enough highly enriched bomb.um for a would have probably taken six ore months to build a crude bomb, a couple of years to build something a bit more sophisticated, but they were ithin a couple of months to be able to make the materials for the bomb. that's how close they were. deal does, and i had these discussions with the iranians, and i didn't believe -- i kept telling them, you've got to open space between he military and the civilian capabilities. well, they opened space, and that space they opened, you year that of this you've heard, and it's pretty good. you know, that's pretty good. so what they've now done is with the deal, they've taken a year if they want to reconstitute. and

but it's only 3% of the population of russia. of course, there are still real people living in those municipalities, but it's a decision that has to be made by local assemblymen. it is very important to make this decision making process transparent. if this tariff is regulated by the government, additional services, they're not regulated. but to make this tariff transparent, the government has to finalize its work on providing information on the structure, the formula, of this tariff. so every person can verify it, can look and find out how much they pay for what. now, as far as additional services are concerned, the answer, these things are not regulated by the government. according to our laws. so what we should do about additional sources is, people should have a meeting and they should decide what services they're interested in and how much they're willing to pay for them. if they don't have a meeting, the municipality will do it for them. and i'll talk about major repairs later. first, i want to say one thing which needs to

if russia is our greatest threat, does that make any sense? mr. scaparrotti: sir, the actual allocation of intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance assets is a complex one. compared to looking at what's going on day to day. but i would say that given the threat in russia, it's obviously a very high priority and if confirmed i'll review that and request the appropriate assets. mr. mccain: thank you, general. these are very interesting and challenging times and this view of this member that you are obviously very well qualified but i hope that in your present position you will demand that decisions be made that enable you to carry out your mission, which is not the case in my view today. mr. reed: thank you, mr. chairman. let me begin by seconding the point that the chairman made that the decision with respect to force structure in afghanistan should be made soon. not later. simply because there are operational considerations that will stretch over many months once that decision is made. and based on my visit in january, it seems that a stronger

and the question has to do with a relationship between russia and iran. it was suggested that iran would not really like to accept that situation. and i'm not -- they also wouldn't like to accept the situation where russia is calling the shots. that i can certainly understand but i'm not sure i understand why they wouldn't be satisfied with the partition so long as their principle goals are achieved. and this is connected, i guess, with the question of what exactly was the purpose of the campaign in palmyra? i think you suggested that people were asking whether this isn't the first step toward raqqah. it seems at least plausible that it wasn't the first step toward raqqah. it was the first step -- it was the step toward a way of protecting the kind of partition you were talking about before, that palmyra was the long finger of the islamic state into the central part of syrian control by assad and something that was more threatening than raqqah. >> how about if we have joe take the second part of the question and then, mike, if you take the first part? joe

he made it clear that russia will lock you in security action. it's incumbent on us to work together and ensure that we take greater action to strengthen our unilateral sanctions against the listing missile program. i am concerned about the debate in this committee and other committees about the possibility of the wider access to the u.s. dollar. i am determined that we make its effortsan and to support terrorism is contained appropriately. thank you for your testimony. cardin: i just want to make a statement about u.s. leadership. to have thered security council take action for the missile violations. it would be preferred that in addition to the actions that we have our coalition partners including beyond the jcp away. it really starts with u.s. leadership. we've seen it over and over again. get the typet to of attention internationally. we did that in north korea with the passage of the sanctions act. it was a strong message. we got that done. i want to make a couple of comments. you've mentioned human rights violations and under these current

>> let me first address the russia issue. the russianst walking away and how vulnerable does that leave nuclear materials? amigo back to 1991-1992 -- they were entertaining the russians in his office. we were interfacing with the russiand -- with the nuclear weapons scientists. when i first went to their secret city in february of 1992 make mymonth, i will 52nd visit to russia since that time. is addressing this issue of the security issues we've had. 1991-1992, back in 1, 2, 3 greatest nuclear threats were related to russia and the coming part of the soviet union and what happened. then we had this incredible combination of u.s. government action that were really important, including president visionary. bush legislation. force, head ofin the government to sort of push into action, talking to each other. they knew it was going to take a lot of cooperation. then, we as scientists, in these labs, started to work together. at that time -- and that is the story we tell in this book. i will try to give you a quick synopsis. [laug

have aimed at russia? >> it's a place i can go that lets me do the thinking and do the decision-making. >> watch house meetings, senate meetings, all sorts of stuff. >> good morning, everyone, phone lines are open. start dialing in. >> the interaction with callers on c-span is great. you never know what you're going to get. >> you're right, i'm from down south. >> oh, god, it's mom. >> and i'm your mother, and i disagree that all families are like ours. i don't know many families that are fighting at thanksgiving. >> and welcome to book tv's live coverage of the 32nd annual miami book fair. >> c-span 2, on the weekends, it becomes book tv. >> and it's been a wonderful way of accessing the work of those folk who are writing really great books. >> every weekend c-span3 becomes american history tv. you're a history junkie, you've gotta watch. >> whether we're talking about a congressional hearing, or we're talking about an era in history, there's so much information that you can convey, if you have that kind

working with russia we are on track to illuminate enough russian highly enriched uranium or about 20,000 nuclear weapons, which we are converting to electricity here in the united states. more specifically, as result of these summits, every single one of the more than 50 nations represented here at taking concrete steps to enhance security at your nuclear facilities and storage sites, and includes improved physical security, stronger regulations, abiding by international guidelines, reader transparency, and that includes international peer-reviewed. 15 new centers have been created around the world to prevent nuclear security technology to share best practices. today we agree to keep strengthening our defenses against cyber attacks. we bolstered international efforts to disrupt nuclear smuggling, and the initiative has grown to more than 100 nations, including exercises to improve our ability to interdict shipments. the united states and are countries have installed equipment at more than 300 international border crossings, airports, and ports, and we are developing new mobile detection

states, but the fact is that without russia and the u.s. collaborating, we are not going to deal effectively with the threat of nuclear materials getting in the wrong hands. of those materials being fashioned into a nuclear device, and that device going off and causing catastrophic damage. that's the threat. and the solution does not lie just in washington, although it lies there in many respects for contributing to the solution. it lies in all these other capitals. so we have to have negotiations, dialogue, discussion. and that runs into the problem that they'r there are all these, ukraine, syria, all sorts of things. at the fact that these issues are real doesn't mean that the danger of nuclear terrorism is an equally real, or the danger of mr. commissioner last night we saw the first preview of command and control. many of you may have seen that book, command and control. it talks about this acted in arkansas in 1980 which didn't get much attention, but which happened, they blame it on human error but actually the machine that had a warh

i mentioned china and russia because they are particularly influential countries. determinede efforts to legislate and end freedom of association in a country as large and influential as russia or china, whether it of foreigntargeting 's and the ngo treatment of russians campaigning against torture or for free elections as if they are somehow traitors to their country. conflation of peacef withtivism and journalism terrorism through legislation. that is a particular concern because those practices are much more likely to be copied in other countries. so, that is why i would single them out. otheruld mention a lot of examples, but then there are also, as the secretary and i both mentioned, there are places where civil society is holding its own and fighting back and democracy is a grandson. -- and democracy is advancing. i had one of the most moving experiences in my time at the state department yesterday meeting a group of newly i.e.nted chief ministers, governors. they were government ministers from burma who came to washington, people who were activists and in so

assistance did you get from russia? mark: i cannot. getting him out of there or was it specifically involving his release? in actually negotiating his release? we have expressed our appreciation that they did play a role and i do not want to go beyond what i already said because it is really up to them to characterize. >> a special envoy for hostile fares was the lead negotiating i do not believe so. i would have to check on that. i just don't know. not know who was leading the effort to secure this release? mark: i will try to get clarification. >> is it like single digits? some general sense? apologize, isee, i mean, we have, in general, i do not have a concrete number. we are aware of reports of u.s. citizens who have gone missing in syria. obviously, we take all of those , as is seriously and said, try to get as much information as we can on their welfare and whereabouts. i do not have a specific number other than obviously the austan case. >> more than one? mark: yes. would it be best to describe this individual, a hostage, detain

russia and iran have been discussing an agreement for russia to sell the combat aircraft tanks, and just to clarify, would the united states veto the approval of such a sale at the un security council? >> yes. >> can you talk about how the sales of a system they are talking about to iran could affect the balance of power in the region? >> are you talking about the systems you listed? >> the su-30s or the su-300s? >> the 30. >> the fighter jets. >> yeah, obviously we have no interest in iran having enhanced either fighter capability or enhanced ground combat capability. any weapons iran can use offensively we would seek to oppose in whatever way we can. >> iran is a state sponsor of terror and a threat to israel and continues to threaten the region with ballistic missile testing. it appears the administration is afraid of iran pulling out of the deal and believes it might risk ties to the united states. if you read the article in the "washington post" called more dollars for the ayatollah. and it said this could have been anticipated expect more issues as iran plays on the weakness of ame

so i lead. -- go ahead. >> you mentioned russia violating international law. if you could comment perhaps on greece's vile yating international law after blocking nato membership in 2008. greece has a fairly new government in place. macedonia may have a new government starting june. what role will your office play in facilitating improving relations and finally lifting this blockage of nato membership, particularly on this point you made before? i am a member of the syrian opposition, delegation to jen eva. i'm here. you already spoke about russia's role in syria and i was waiting to hear the nato's counter strategy to at least having some balance of power on the ground. but i will not ask that you question. my question is there have been recently been efforts by the gcc led by saudi air ba to establish the islamic coalation against isis. will nato partner if they ask with this new coalition for a direct military intervention in syria? yes or no? thank you. >> if the question was whether zrects going to conduct a military intervention into syria, the answer is

in this country more so than russia. address to continue to work together to the weapons to the materials that doesn't just require the government action. but in this case we had two senators to cap looking over there but all the way down the line several thousand scientists and engineers thousands of trips back and forth. literally thousands. >> a place for a nuclear device how accurate is that? >> i think some of the things that we talk about is the logic is that the states including pakistan and their leaders have greater motivation even than we do to maintain a the crown jewel. the pakistan the army it may not be fully competent but i said there the safest thing and pakistan. that may not be enough you may say they're still not safe but what more do want to do? that if they address them they are more safe and secure. >> is very quiet the other is the ongoing department of energy cooperation is very difficult because the military we worry the most about terrorist and they worry about us. with the osama bin lot of trad

you both mentioned in your testimony the threat from russia. one concern they asked about which i could not answer, which is why the decision seems to be made to pre-position the equipment, to do the rotational more in western europe than in eastern europe on the front lines. so, how do we explain the decision to do that? all, i milley: first of defer an authoritative answer to general breedlove. he determines where that equipment goes. but there's a couple of issues here, not the least of which are political negotiations with foreign governments as to where it goes, where you base it, building the infrastructure to support it, and so on. nche will bring the equipment. the rotational units will bring equipment, rather than having it bp positioned initially. you will see in 17 and 18, we inl have a pre-position europe. there are advantages and disadvantages to pre-positioning and/or bringing it with you. both are valuable. the advantage of deploying with your equipment is to exercise the strategic climate systems. the navy and the air force, alo

russia, for instance, has also seen the horror of islamic terrorism. i believe an easing of tensions, and improved relations with russia from a position of strength only is possible, absolutely possible. common sense says this cycle, this horrible cycle of hostility must end and ideally will end soon. good for both countries. some say the russians won't be reasonable. i intend to find out. if we can't make a deal under my administration, a deal that's great -- not good, great -- for america, but also good for russia, then we will quickly walk from the table. it's as simple as that, we're going to find out. fixing our relations with china is another important step -- and really toward creating an even more prosperous period of time. china respects strength, and by letting them take advantage of us economically, which they are doing like never before, we have lost all of their respect. we have a massive trade deficit with china, a deficit that we have to find a way quickly, and i mean quickly, to balance. a strong and smart america is an america that wil

so russia doesn't get anything at of this? if those companies get employment. >> 382 do it and go to russia. >> unless somebody really wants to talk, the question is on the amendment offered 197. the aye's have it. the amendment is agreed to. >> [inaudible conversations] just hold your place for a second. event there is of question about the language. [inaudible conversations] the committee will be in order. suspend the passing out of this amendment. we have five roll-call votes let's get those done then read while they will work on the language and we will come back to do that. [laughter] never mind. okay. i am sorry let's finish that and pass that out i apologize for the confusion. and without objection number 196 is considered as read and a distinguished member is recognized to make it is complicated but i will keep it short. parts of the funding comes from the government the majority comes from the private sector with the partnerships the purpose is to allow some of that monday to also be used to develop a new launch vehic

we have delivered sanctions against russia in response to aggression against ukraine. we've secured the first ever legally binding deal on climate change. being formally signed today by over 150 governments at the united nations. and we have transformed the way we use our aid, and our military together to make progress and -- on some of the most difficult issues of our time. for example, in east africa, we have helped to turn around the prospects for somalia. for instance, thanks to an e.u. operation, led by britain, its waters are no longer a safe haven for pirates. in west africa, british leadership in europe secured one billion euros to help the people to defeat the outbreak of ebola with britain taking the lead in sierra leone, the united states in liberia and guinea. just as we made progress in these areas, so there are many more that need a lot more work. there is no doubt that the situation in libya is challenging but we now finally have a government of national accord with whom we can work. while in syria and iraq, we are continuing coalition efforts to defeat

can you give us a picture of what you're seeing from russia? we know that some fighters have left, but are there bombing activities by russia starting to make it more difficult for the u.s. to conduct any operations there? does this call for greater con flix? and what are you seeing russia do over the last couple of weeks? >> yes, ma'am. first of all, in reregards to the percentages of territory regained by -- you know, as i mentioned at the outset, it's momentum as with the coalition. it's shifted. so, a year ago, 18 months ago, the area in which was isil controlled was much larger. i would not come to a percentage decrease but it is -- it is significant. it's a significant -- and when you're talking 6,000 square kilometers in syria alone, that's a lot of space regained by coalition forces fighting in syria and coalition forces fighting in iraq. and as the -- and iraqi forces fighting in iraq. that are retaking isil territory. it is restricted their movement. their ability to lines of communication, you know, between iraq and syria, but also,

and i want good relations with russia, and have invested a lot in good relations with russia. but we need to keep sanctions on russia in place until russia fully implements the minsk agreements that chancellor merkel and president hollande and others have worked so hard to maintain, and provide a path for a political resolution of this issue. and ultimately, it is my fervent hope that russia recognizes that true greatness comes not from bullying neighbors, but by working with the world, which is the only way to deliver lasting economic growth and progress to the russian people. now, our collective security rests on a foundation of prosperity, so that brings me to my second point. the world needs a prosperous and growing europe -- not just a strong europe, but a prosperous and growing europe that generates good jobs and wages for its people. as i mentioned before, the economic anxieties many feel today on both sides of the atlantic are real. the disruptive changes brought about by the global economy, unfortunately, sometimes are hitting certain groups, especially working-class

., the only is russia. that should tells tells all we need to know. >> yes i'd do agree with that but in any case we are here to do what is in britain's national interest not other people's national interest. i think a particular look at what is me instead in the united states there's no shortage of american political opinion telling us that we ought to remain in the ion. an organization with no american politician would ever tolerate. all of our friends around the world some of them in particular the united states may be when they're opening the border with mexico and a body that stops congress been the ultimate authority for federal law that maybe we can take another look at it. >> thank you. your partner in crime so to speak talked a great deal about threats from russia, he talked about world war i and world war ii and the importance of this collective response to those threats, but of course he only referred to nato once i think at the end of his speech. of course we we are remnants of nato, and as doct

similarly with russia. first out of country russian forces moved in and decimated the moderate syrian opposition groups. russia has used syria as a live fire exercise in modernizing its military. despite predictions of a russian quagmire, president putin has achieve military to distinct military goals. he now appears poised to retake aleppo. capabilitiesary remain in syria and enhance his ability to project power be on the region. u.s.again, once again, the response has appeared confused, reactive, and in adequate. none of this is happening because our adversaries are 10 feet tall or somehow more capable than us. instead, a sophisticate -- instead, as sophisticated and -- flat of isis is, but --in is paying -- vladimir putin is playing a game. aggressively expanding and put simply, too many of our leaders appear to involved in the tactical fight. the escalation of military operations are not enough in the strategic fight. despite the tactical gains, we must ask ourselves, "are we working? are we winning? ar

>> it wouldn't just be russia that would welcome brexit. donald trump would welcome it as well. >> there was the importance of the removal of the union. he said he would write to me. he did write to me, but he couldn't name one. >> i want to add that scottish independence and membership to the european union are not mutually exclusive. among the many things mr. trump has been saying is that he was going to have a 40% tariff against all countries. in that appalling scenario of him having the ability to do that, i suspect i would rather be negotiating the marketplace of 600 million people than negotiating a bilateral agreement with somebody who is talking about 40% tariffs. >> i was quite keen to answer mr. gates' question. if the united kingdom left the european union, would that provide a risk that other countries who were similar outside the eurozone, would they follow suit? i think the answer to the question has to be yes initially. without fundamental reform, without a change in direction, without consideration of the next generation of

seen the importance of that on issues like the iranian nuclear negotiations, the sanctions against russia, where europe where europe has made a difference to the global position and one that would have been achieved without the united kingdom. if we were not in the european union, such are the common strategic interest between britain and the rest of europe that a lot of our foreign-policy effort would have to be diverted to influence the european union in which we are no longer a member. there is no strategic threat of france, germany to come to europe but it would also be a threat to to britain as we found in 1914 and 1939. so we would be an extra in her situation of having given up the power to either control or influence policy and seeking as outsiders come another the last influence the outcome would be very important to us. as a columnist in the new york times remarked that britain could be alone against enemies in 1940 was heroic, for britain britain to be alone amongst friends in 2016 would be absurd. i noticed the campaigners argue that we would somehow be liberated and would be

have aimed in russia? >> it lets me do the thinking, and the decision-making. >> senate meetings, all that kind of stuff. >> the phone lines are open. never know what you're going to get. >> you're right i'm from down south. >> i and your mother. i disagree that all families are like ours. i don't know many families -- welcome to book tvs live coverage of the 32nd annual miami book fair. on the weekend, it becomes book tv. >> it is a wonderful way of accessing the work of those who are writing really great books. every weekend, c-span3 becomes american history tv. you have to watch if you are a history junkie. >> whether you're talking but a anngressional hearing, or era in history. there is so much you can convey. capitol,r it is at the or the campaign trail, there capturing history as it happens. inside of the congregations on capitol hill and that you have a seat at the table. you can't find that anywhere else. >> i am a c-span fan. >> i am a c-span fan. >> yes, i'm a c-span fan. the power of c-span. ac

about somebodyis else paying russia summit hang the cost for something else's action. that plays out a lot of ways in the flame -- in the flynt kind of way. utilities having to handle agricultural runoff, and communities have to pay for that agricultural runoff. quality of life and waters that flow through their communities, but very direct cost to make it potable. is bacteria coming off of algae growth. but this is true throughout the country, and especially in the small poor rural communities that don't have the money to pay for that cleaning. i think this gets back to agricultural policies in terms of how we can -- it is not just putting less fertilizer on. we have a major opportunity that allows us to not only hold onto to those nutrients, use less of them, you're a less, reduce flooding and on and on and on, we that is one of the ways shift the action back upstream. those wells and communities aren't paying the price for something they didn't do. find thek at how we will that find equitable raise -- find equitable ways, we have to look broadly at ways for people t

russia a good example. honduras. sadly, i've lived in honduras, a journalist at a radio station where i worked with the jesuit community there 38 years ago. a number of other journalists have been killed as well. i think the chair alluded to some freedom of press questions in his opening comments. this is so fundamental. again, if you see a government cracking down on a free press, you can bet they'll crack down on political opponents. they're going to be trying to engage in other authoritarian activity as much as we in politics sometimes rankle under a free press that is free and robust and challenging. we sure wouldn't trade it for anything else. tell us how the state department through your bureau tries to advance the notion of protecting freedom of the press around the world. >> well, first of all, when a government cracks down on free press, we speak out about it. and we talk to them about it in our high level diplomatic engagements. we've done it with turkey. we've done it with egypt where we have worked really

a rather immediate response from isil in terms of shaking up the political status quote but not in russia or china. do you this could blow over it will depend on individual cases. >> one of the reason it has a lot of reaction in russia, it's kind of obvious is that there's tighter control on your counterparts there. so the likelihood that that's going to come close to or touch president putin is pretty remote other places, it depends on the politics and how individual countries and individual legal systems respond to it. it's hard to make a generalized answer to your question. >> mr. director, follow up on your question, you sort of mention this, but can you say what 250 or 300 soldiers can do that 50 soldiers cannot? >> know i can't. this isn't an intelligence issue. as i like to remind my friends on the hill, i really can't say. >> part of their task is to gather intelligence. will they be able to diffuse the different groups? is this a good thing or will there be more deployment? i wouldn't go there either. inside, on the ground intelligence gathering is but one test that they do. obvi

i wanted to start with does russia have the ability to inflict serious harm. do we have the capability? >> in a classified discussion, i would rather not get into that. >> let me put it in the context of i assume there is some mutual detouerrence that goes on when we're talking about some state actors. >> again, it's a lot more complicated than just the yes or no. >> i hope we can ask that question in a classified setting. i had the opportunity over the last two weeks to visit astoniya and probably the first victim of a cyber attack by a nation state by russia. it's been acredited by nato and to hear them talk about how they thi think. can you talk how cyber come works with nato allies? >> i've been there myself and to the center and in brussels for example in december and as u.s. cyber command, i addressed the north atlantic counsel one of the member nations asked to talk to the leaders up at the alliance about implications of cyber and how lengthy and large one voice. i'm the first to acknowledge that. how might the alliance work its way forward as we try to

yummy will play a continuing role in defeating an aggressive russia. in asia, and the pacific, there are complex systemic challenges with a rising china that is increasingly assertive militarily especially in the south china sea and a very provocative north korea. both situations are creating conditions for potential conflict. again, the united states army is key to ushering our allies in asia and it during conflict - in detering conflict and defeating the enemy if conflict occurs. while none of us in this room or anywhere else can forecast precisely when or where the next tendency will arise, it is my professional literary view -- military view that if any contingency happens it will likely higher a significant commitment of army ground forces because war is ultimately an act of requiring one side to impose its political will on the other wall wars often start from the ir or the sea, wars ultimately end when political will is imposed on the ground. if one or more possible unforeseen contingencies happened, the united states army currently risks not ha

and iran -- and may have been mentioned here but not in depth reports that russia's shipment of parts of an air defense system to iran. in addition, western iran supposedly in talks over them fighter to chat -- possible -- fighter jet. ,f the systems are delivered there has been a violation of security council 2231. i am not an international lawyer may seems pretty clear that would be a violation which requires security council approval for the sale of any major, systems to iran. supplying weapons to iran is particularly dangerous because it is not done in a vacuum, reflects aeapons growing partisanship that has far-reaching ramifications for hezbollah because that is the run's terrorist proxy, benefiting the -- indirectly from russian arms and military operational experience in syria. you, mayon to both of i begin the general dunford, what implications for israel if you're on continues to receive military equipment in russia and what would the united states have to do? >> i think clearly there are implications for israel. i have visited a couple of times over the last few months and