so they have, we have it's kind of like almost an olympic "pq,ercises we have. how do we do in the gun shoot, how do we do in this and that? some say, well, they were average to high average. well, okay, i don't know what judges decided that. i would say they're coming along well, especially their interest in humanitarian assistance disaster relief. and that's oar do and to take on -- and to take on the responsible role that a growing navy would take on. >> are you overly concerned about the pace at which they're getting better? the last thing you said seems fairly apple pie if they're helping with humanitarian operations and so forth. i know our navies have sometimes come into close proximity, there have been some dangerous @&c% encounters. they're not entirely comfortable with our presence in the western (acific. there's a lot of thinking they want to push us back. i guess a twofold question, are you particularly worried about that and, secondly, do we need

rules of the road for how the navies interact, some of the safety and hotline measures that the u.s. and soviets had in the cold war? would we be well served by introducing more of those into the u.s./china relationship? >> let me answer your last @&c% question first, we started a dialogue. it is relatively routine right now. periodic, perhaps predictable. i think it follows suit that we have a means to discuss, both continue our deliberate processes, but also when we have these untoward incidents. ..

what are the intentions and how do we manage this growing entity that we're going to share the south china sea and east china sea? we're going to be there and they acknowledge that. >> that brings me back to the rebalance if i could ask a couple more questions on that. you itemized some of the specific things you're doing with more destroyer capacity in japan. the four littoral ships going to singapore, submarine to guam, et cetera, a number of specific changes and initiatives but i wanted to ask you about the sort of big umbrella change which is this notion 60% of the navy is supposed to be focused on or

based in the asia-pacific at least by 20/20, that is change from 50% norm we had in the cold war. how are we doing about that? my next question will be about budget and sequestration because even if we're moving towards 60% of our navy in the eastern pacific, if budget pressures push your fleet size downward, at some point 60% of the that smaller navy is no greater than 50% of the old. i will come to that next. how are we doing approaching that 60% firm. is that 60% of the fleet operating in the western pacific, or more generally throughout the asia-pacific region including indian ocean? >> that numb whatever 60% represents the percentage of our navy home-ported west. the idea it is easily to rotationally deploy or react if you have to, if you're home-ported where you believe your focus of attention should be. we're on track for that. as we build ships we look toward

home porting them to the west and keeping that, again that, process going because it is not just numbers. it's also the numbers with the most capability. two destroyers to japan is a part of that. the literal combat ships to singapore, they're not a part of that in that they're not home-ported there. the sailers don't move there. they will go out and operate, they will rotate the cruise and, kind of like we're your family where your home is. in that case it will be san diego. still west but not as far west. my point would be, be we certainly, we have a target number. we need 306. you know, our number of ships in order to accomplish the defense strategic guidance but doing the best that we can in with the ships that we have is also important.

so put another way, michael, we could have a lot of ships but if they're all here home based in the united states and we're not operating forward then we're not nearly as effective and we try to respond and it is three weeks just about any place in the united states to any hot spot around the world. >> that is very helpful clarifying answer on the 60%. i wanted to ask you about fleet size. i know that today's fleet, while i will let you correct me in a second, it is in the vicinity of 285 ships. you're aiming for 306 as you just mentioned. based on hopes where the budget will go and what is reflected in the administration's long-term budget plan but we also know two things that complicate your life. i'm sure there are a lot more than two but one is the potential return of sequestration in next year's budget. sequestration level, defense spending which is lower than the administration wants or planned on. yet at the moment it will be the

law of the, to be able to act in the meantime. if we do wind up at a sequestration level of defense spending and we stay there, can you give us a rough sense what that does to your plans? how big the navy would become? instead of being 306 what is the rough approximate benchmark. the other complicating factor, technology f-35 aircraft wind up costing more than we hope. you could have additional pressure, reducing number of purchases and airplanes because of that. can you give us a little sense. you're at 2856789 hoping for 306. what could happen and how much could you fall short if you don't get the fund you need? >> i think we're at i think it is 289 the number today. i don't want to quibble so much, but it is, there is a point to be made. we're growing. and we're growing because we've had a stable shipbuilding plan now for about five, six, seven

years, i would say. that has produced ships and ship ojects, shipbuilding projects that are coming in on time and under budget because we have a competitive situation and a multiyear procurement situation. so the value of that is starting to show itself. we will continue to grow. under the current budget that we have today, i will start with that, the fiscal year 15, if you extrapolate that out, what we submitted to the hill, we would have 308 ships by 2020. if you go out to 2025 we grow to 317. so that is decent scenario. if we went to the budget control act, and there are two parts of this, you go to the budget control act and very, how do i say this, predictable manner, so you sort of know what your budget is and make those plans. then you can go about it where you get sequestered. where there is just no decision every year. you get to the beginning of that year, and then you get sequestered. we have algorithm which kicks

in. that is fiscal year 13 all over again. that is a bad situation, for two reasons. you haven't planned for any of it because you haven't been told to and suddenly all of your programs reduced by 10%. so you scramble for months to reprogram money and get the important monies where they need to be, like the ohio replacement. you lose months of work. months of hiring perhaps, if you triering to get engineers. so it is very disruptive and that adds up if you do that year after year. that is worse than going to a long-term budget control act and it doesn't help with your people who are the most important aspect of it. but to your point, i would say, i worry about the shipbuilding industrial base. i worry about that scenario which would cause us to have to reduce our ship building account. this would take years to manifest itself in numbers, depending how many ships we had to retire to meet the budget requirements.

but, more importantly, if we lose a builder here and there, and there are some likelihood we lose one or two builders and we only have five, we lose that competitive competition which i mentioned earlier which gives you much more effective ship-building base and gets you to the situation where if you need to reconstitute your ship account if you will, you could put money in but you only have so many builders. you lose the mid-grade vendors, people that build specialized valves, circuits and other specialized items, especially in the nuclear arena. and that would be a tough call. that would be a very tough recovery. >> by the way quick follow-up just for the general viewer and observer here, those five shipyards you just remind us where they are right now? >> sure, if i start at the bath up in the northwest in maine. electric boat in connecticut. down in the newport news area you have huntington. you have engles down in

gulfport, mississippi. you have naskco on the west coast in the san diego arena. those are the big ones. there are other ship builders but those are the big once that provide, if you will our capital ships. the little combat ship builders are up in the northwest wisconsin area and down in the gulf, in mobile, alabama. >> i have two more questions. one will be on missile defense and one on air-sea battle. on missile defense, this is important priority not only for your service but all the services. you have the standard missile as well as the aegis radar that would provide information and guidance but china particular is modernizing mayor thinks missiles. always a tough for defender in the missile age to deal with potential threat from missiles whether the icbms in the nuclear threat or tactical

threat which is major to the 7th fleet. how do you feel about overall missile defense technology and to put it right to a point, do we need a breakthrough in energy weapon directed defense before we'll change the balance and have the defense in potentially strong position vis-a-vis the offense? >> my view there are two areas that we are doing some very good exploratory work, some demonstrations. they are directed energy. i think that is a longer range, effective weapon systems that we need to look at. as we speak here, we have directed energy weapon. in fact we have it, tim, if you would put it up out on the ponce, out on a ship in arabian gulf. in a few days we'll demonstrate this thing. we already have. you see the results up here behind. that is low-energy weapon, directednergy weapon. you see the result with the small boat there and the drop

that is flaming coming down. so that is an low energy. the key, how do you increase the energy of this? what kind of power sources require that? i think it is, we're on a path to do that. how does it perform? some people say, well if it rains the water will absorb the energy. really let's take a look at this. said put it out in the most difficult or austere of one. i can't think of one arabian gulf late august through this fall. i think that is important weapons system. the second piece is we've been sort of obsessed with bullet on bullet. shoot down ballistic or cruise missile with another missile. that is pricey view. one of these, that costs you about a dollar. when you, once you're on target and lays something, laze something, 10 or $15.

missile cost as about a million dollars. you see the pay back once you get that thing started. other side of it is to spoof it, see it and jam it. rather than trying to shoot it down. that is what i call electromagnetic manuever warfare. know the spectrum, understand it, expand your ability to detect both low energy, if you will seekers and then to you know, the broad spectrum we have out there. to move in the spectrum, to be agile in that electromagnetic spectrum. we need to expand that and we're working on that hard. >> my next question on air-sea battle, innovative and idea that came out to think thank world and navy and air force in particular promoted it on your watch. there is official concept on the pentagon website that people can read about what it means to the military but, sand i'm a, jim steinberg and i wrote a book which we talked about this

concept. we had some concerns but saw a lot of military logic behind it but i want to express in summary form but what some of the stronger critics have said and ask you to respond and explain to the audience what air-sea battle means to you in this late juncture in 2014. it now has been around long enough as an idea that different people taken it in different directions, not so much inside the military but outside. some argue that air-sea battle should be long-range strike where we don't have as many assets deapplied in the asia-pacific region, more deployed in fall, hawaii, united states. and bigger take call war. we wind up in a war specifically against china, some interpretations of air sea battle would say we ought to if preempt some of their launchers fairly early even on chinese homeland, some of their missile launchers and submarine yards for example. obviously there is some logic to those ideas if you get deeply

into a war and think about going to the limit to win but the some people have said that the proposal for an early preemption could be dangerous in a crisis. so i just wanted to give you a chance to explain in the terms that you see most appropriate. what does air-sea battle mean today in terms of your modernization strategy and war fighting strategy? >> so, let me back out of the war plan you described for china to talk about air-sea battle. it is a concept thinking about how to get assured access to wherever it is you need to go and this could involve, and it really could involve he humanitarian assistance, disaster relief. how will you get into a particular site, how do you get access to deliver comfort when you have things that are going so much against you? we saw it very much in operation tomadaci. we had radiation issues.

we had contamination. how will we go in and measure that to get in and deliver it? and the logic that is behind working together to do that. so let me leave that for what it may. this could involve operations across the spectrum. a lot of people feel it is think kinetically in that approach. okay, you need to get access. how will you do this to deliver this kinetic weapon? i would say there may be unkinetic way to do that. maybe it involves electromagnetic features. maybe it involves cyber. undersea and airspace. the whole idea you have to think across the spectrum of the domains, number one. two, it may be while like i said it could be kinetic effect or non-kinetic. which is best and get us access and get us that answer? number three, if you are under the sea, is it only undersea effect you deliver, be it weapon, be it whatever the heck it is? or can you deliver across

domain? is the undersea solution to something on the land better or is the air solution to an undersea problem the better way? so it is getting people to think cross domain, kinetic and non-kinetic, across the cross the spectrum of challenges that we have. step one is to get our officers and our, those coming up to embrace this and stand back and, instead of waiting until you're in an operation, say, okay, what do we got and how do we do the best with that? that is great joint operations. but as we plan our campaigns and that, how are you thinking in the manner that i just described, all those features? and then, how do you build your programs accordingly? if the best solution is from an aircraft, delivered by an air force program there, then why am i building that? if in the joint force we are better served to invest in that and then similarly i should have that on my aircraft if it's a

good effect, am i putting that on my aircraft. so it builds interdependence on to. that so if you want to fast forward and say, okay, i want to talk about how you're going to take on country x, i would say, let's start at the beginning there. where do we have a opposed access? what asymmetric approach may we have here? kin nettic, non-kin nettic, what is the best way -- non-kinetic. that is the logic we to build. our most recent discussions with air force and all services, because we expanded this across all the services. we have a service chief meeting quarterly we get together to describe, we get reports how we're doing, and as we build our palms and our budgets are we doing duplicative effort here in this regard? is there a gap and if there is gap who is best served to take

on this gap. >> very helpful. i will take questions from the audience. we have 20 minutes. we'll start with harm lon in the second row. even though i identified harlan, please identified yourself when you take the microphone. over here. >> thank you, admiral, good to see you. thank you for your comments especially what you're doing with china. i would like to broaden the aperture and ask you about the role in the joint chiefs and balancing long term and short term. the there is rebalance the white house like to call the strategic initiative. the general breedlove was saying do we want to reduce forces given what is happening in ukraine. given what is happening iran, iraq, afghanistan, pakistan. there is tremendous argument we'll be engaged there. what advice would you give or will you give how you balance these short-term issues which actually could be quite long term against a larger pivot, especially as we find ourselves more engaged in middle east

region? >> i think for us we can, i use the term often, operate forward and use the forces that we have forward as effectively as possible. so if i look at europe, folks say, wait a minute, what are you doing about europe? well, we're putting four destroysers in roda. we are calling them forward-deployed naval force. we're building ships today which have great persistence. we could move them there if you will. it is about capacity. it is about deck space, if you will. then bring in the kind of aircraft you need that resonates with -- put up mobile landing platform and forward stages base and it is taking what we have and making sure that we are making best use of it for the problems of today. as i said in my opening remarks. the focus is still within the department of defense and within, you know, the national command authority to the asia-pacific. obviously we have today's

problems today to deal with. i think we have opportunities. this is now, goodness this, is 2 1/2 months old. this ship is far along. we're building three of these. you see the deck space over there. these are kind of things we can use in and around your north africa, the levant, the somalia, the yemen and put these out in and around the world and leave the big deck, amphib issues to continue along a deliberate path with the high-end warfare piece. so there's messages to be sent to the support, to nato and there. and i think, for us, we're distributing that fine. on the isil operations and people wonder about that, we provide carrier with air wing and right now talking with general lloyd austin, he is fine with that. we've got a lot of capacity on the ships that we have forward today. 104 ships are out and about around the world, harlan. they have a lot of capability,

we will continue to train, to trade, sorry to expand that capability so each can deliver them. i will close, i'm fairly happy with where we're going and the focus remains appropriately in the asia-pacific balance. >> go here not front rows, please. >> admiral, nice to see you again. i'm with the naval postgraduate school. the world has changed. what do you think are the changes that need to take place in the training and education and learning of our sailors and officers? i mean it is just not about hitting the target. you used two important words to me. one was understanding and the other was relationship. how does that get into our educational programs. >> well we mentioned earlier, bringing in people from the chinese navy to interface with our folks to see who is this example, who is this head today, in seven years will be a

commanding officer after greg gaat and destroy in the chinese navy accordingly? who are the pilots and making sure they meet and understand who the other one is. find out, can they trust each other on an international screen or agenda in that regard and how different are they? they're not 10 feet tall. they actually have many of the same concerns. that's helpful. it is not kumbayah. we'll not all have a coke as they say, we can work this all out but it is understanding how do they think, what is important to them. what's their psyche. so that's one. continue those international programs at our war college and put for of them in our naval academy. i spoke earlier, mentioned cyber. we've got to get a baseline. we need to have cyber boot camp big time in our naval academy, rotc and we have sigh before warriors but we are putting

tabless and -- tablets and smartphones and use of them back into our basic training. you say, i didn't know you took it away? yeah, we actually do. today we bring them in and they have got their phones and their tablets. take all that away. write a letter to your mother and that is like giving them a chisel and a hammer saying okay. and we start that and we say, well, actually we need to give those back send and email to your mother, or text your mother and by the way this is how you need to do this this is basics of password protection. this is virus protection. doesn't charge this thing up on a computer on your ship. that is not a good idea. we don't want to share virus. cyber hygiene. you have to get that down. then to say, all the elements of what you're doing it is a combat system. that network is a combat system. it exchanges information and

understanding of information dominance. you know he or she who has the information upper hand twelve has the upper hand and like which will lead to victory in some way. so there is the cyber education that needs to take place. and then lastly, moran and i, our chief of naval personnel, we're working diligently saying okay, we bring a kid into the navy. they're all kids to me, and in two years we have them about ready to go be something like an aegis tech, gas turbine tech. two years. you can get a master's degree in two years, right, at any program most likely, certainly most of college degree if you're starting there. we're not even close to that. so what is it that we can do to be faster in that regard. after those two years it is about six more years before we send, at least six years, before we send them to a major upgrade in their education. that is too long. because, they're equipment is rapidly changing over and over.

you know the loop that we're talking about. how do we keep up with that in a man they're is sensible and reasonably, well, we have to evolve this we're trying to build this airplane as it is flying to put it another way. so anyway those are the things we need to change and those three i think for sure. >> thank you. let's go over here to the side. >> admiral, sidey freeburg, breaking defense. i came off virginia where your folks and a lot of allies are starting off bold alligator and goes to a lot of the themes you mentioned but also to some of the challenges that you mentionein the past we have a lot of different companies operating there. a danish commander, commander u.s. ships. working exercises on crisis response, humanitarian side, to serve the kinet side but also,

you know, they had to cludge antenna on side of lpd to communicate with the allies. looks like they're stealing cable in the third world. meanwhile the dutch ship, the flagship of this task force is built to commercial damage control standards. even so-called throw threat environment, somebody may get their hands on a cruise missile nowadays do very bad things to a ship with a lot of people aboard. with that, as an example, how do we deal with these problems of interoperability with the allies not just technically but what they're able to survive in terms of threats? >> well, if i had that answer as clearly i would like to have it, sidney, we could have skipped bold alligator and said we've got the answers. we're in a bit of discovery. i think you're discovering that and you've outlined a few of the things that come about. what kind of equipment and capables do our allies have. we we need understand that.

you don't really get into those details and find those issues until you bring them together. that is kind of one. two, we're still coming back as marines come back to sea. we welcome them back and they have capability as they move ahead on ground operations and expeditionary operations over the years in iraq and afghanistan. we didn't move at same equivalent pace and didn't stay synchronized as we should have. the discovery you described, we're putting antenna on here that makes us compatible even with our ground forces, get that capability, understand, it put it into the programing system and we'll install that as a payload for command-and-control and also for coordination among ourselves. what do we need for the allies? we build the next, as i just described, say use your antenna as an example. the antenna, tracking processes if you will and capability and planning capability that would be great for the navy and marine

corps but back to air sea battle, how do we use that with allies? is it compatible? can we make it compatible? can we get step it up and have maybe two different modes? one would be internal, one would be allied in that regard. with regard to how do we, i guess i'd say baseline, survivability and all those elements, we have to figure that out right now what kind of ships would we put into a joyce force of entry scenario. i quickly through threw up here forward float staging base. that is built to conmergessal standards in its elements. we would not use this as forcible entry. we would use the gray hulls. that ship up here is $600 million ship. the uss america we usually brought on is over $4 billion. so there is scaling that we need to consider and all that. but anyway i summarized by saying that is why we do bold

alligator and those are the lessons learned. we'll pull out of that to put into our programing and budgeting in the future and concept of operations. >> before i go back to the audience, one quick follow-up we talked a lot about china panned allies today i want to ask pour update how the russian navy is behaving and to what extent are you continuing to see them very proprovocative in the 2014 year. >> they're business in the submarine domain. they're not as busy in the surface ships we see. surface ships i recognized something i learned through my commanding days and that is quite a while ago. . .

>> okay. let's take two questions here in the fourth row. take them together and then see if we can respond, and we'll probably have time for one wrap-up round. these two right here. >> admiral james -- [inaudible] retired naval officer. how are you doing with tempo of operations, and how are you managing that? >> thank you, and if we could add this one. >> central news agency, taiwan. how much of a role does taiwan play in the state's rebalancing

policy in and also i know that taiwan is expecting to get a technical support or -- [inaudible] what's the status currently? thank you. >> i'll take tempo. we have the vincent on a deployment now. her deployment will be close to nine months. that's not sustainable. we have right now the macon island, that's an amphibious ready group, and those are the two big kind of -- they're not -- i guess i'll call them anecdotes. they're fallouts from this sequestration issue, and i'll tell you what i mean in just a minute. she's on a deployment which is well over eight months. when we had -- when sequestration hit us, remember, it was sudden. and when that occurred, we -- because of the sudden loss of operating money and may maintene money, we stopped work on some of the projects in the

shipyards, the vin center, the reagan and the george herbert walker bush. the bush just got back, and she had a fairly long deployment, between eight and nine months. when you stopped work like you did then, those that were on deployment stood the watch. when we finally got squared away and got the money going again, got the shipyards up again, people out of furloughs, over time restored, we're trying to get these guys caught up. their out there -- they're out there on watch, longer deployments. they finally come home, and now it's their turn to go on deployments. theirs is longer while we bring these guys back in. so this has taken about two years, and that's the kind of impact you have that has second and third order effects. it affects the big decks, the nuclear carriers, the ssns also. those are the public shipyards, those are the federal employees we hire. when you don't have a predictable budge when you do -- budget when you do negotiations

for the private shipyards, they're not going to, if you will, spool up to be ready in time. you don't have the work orders done. you get my point. this has just all slowed down. so we've got another year. vincent will be out there about eight and a half months, of this longer deployments. when you get into the p3, p8, the submarine deployments, they're fairly notion bl. six and a half months. my target is eight and a half months, i think that is sustainable with our people, with our maintenance, with our training, what we can provide which i think is reasonable and sensible, gives us that presence and the ability to spool up and react as necessary. but we've got -- we need a stable budget, we need the current budget that we've requested, and we need time to bring the shipyard capacity up to where it needed to be before. so this is -- that's just, you know, how long this stuff takes in second or third order

effects. with regard to taiwan, we have responsibilities with a treaty with them. we will honor those responsibilities. we have a process worked out with our department of state as to how we interact and, you know, bothfor human capital, if you will, intellectually if you will, and then exercise and what we can provide for assistance. and we're living up to that, we're continuing with that and expect to do. so fatherly deliberately laid out. not really a whole lot of leeway one way or the other in this regard. so unless there's something specific, that's about the best i can tell you right now. >> could you just clarify on that point what is the guiding document, are you referring to the taiwan relations act? what's the specific -- >> it's the taiwan relations act. that is our commitment. >> yep. okay. let's take two more and see how we're doing on time, and maybe john evans in the fifth row and then over here on the side. take them together, if we could,

and then ask the admiral to wrap up. >> hey, good morning, admiral. i'm john evans, the army fellow here at brookings. i wanted to ask you to put on your joint chiefs hat and talk about your levelover comfort or discomfort with an army that looks to be bloing below 490, maybe 450 as the active force. i know your predecessor was pretty vocal about that, if you could just talk about that, thanks. >> take this last question here, please. >> hi, i'm elizabeth royal. you talked a lot about cooperation with china, and i was hoping that you could talk a little bit about the navy's goals for cooperation and capabilities of our allied and our treaty partners in the asia-pacific. >> okay, sure. i share general odierno's concern with regard to the sizing of the army because, you know, we are a supporting element of that in the joint force. and what i mean by that is,

okay, if we're going to resize any of the services, really the centerpiece of the land force -- the army -- then what, what's the construct behind that, and what are are we going to agree will be the limitations of our operations out there? and what is the, our tendency to do that? what has been in the past, you know, we've said, well, we are not interested in doing this, that or the other thing, but then as we say, the world gets a vote. and the size of stability operations. because a clear indicator is as we move anything from army, army armor out to he lows out to -- helos out, all of that, we're the kind of fill-in behind all of that, and we're seeing some of that right now with operations in afghanistan. so i think we need to do this in a careful, deliberate manner. we did our own rightizing of

our personnel. it was 1%. we had 3%. we laid off 3% -- or, sorry, 1%. 3,000 folks. the effect on morale and the trust factor was huge. so what we can expect collectively of any of our ground forces in any of our services to size the force yet make sure we maintain that trust and confidence in the covenant that we have with them, i think, is important. and it's a joint issue that we all need to understand. so the size, the readiness, the psyche and the morale of the ground force is a joint issue. we all ought to be concerned as we watch this. we've got to do it very carefully. i think the other -- in the asia-pacific allies' interaction, i think in the near term the concept of collective self-defense is a clear item that i'm watching, and this is with japan. where that can take us if it

goes according to the plan set out by the japanese government, then they can share with us in ballistic missile defense. it's defensive in nature. they have all of the sensors, weapons, command and control that we have. so that would be a big movement afoot. next would be countermine in locations like the strait of hormuz. again, very defensive, collective in that regard. required a little bit more coordination would be operate toking with our carrier strike -- operating with our carrier strike group and assuming one of those missions of defense of the carrier strike group such as anti-air defense. all of the rules of engagement and the caveats associated. that would be one area. korea, we'll see where we want to go in that regard, that's a matter of what korea's comfortable with regarding coordinated operations, especially at sea. right now it's very tentative as they're feeling their way through how much they would want to proceed in that regard.

so when it comes to missions, i would say ballistic missile defense, there is opportunities there. countermine, there's opportunities there. we've demonstrated this in a good way, the deterrent effect of coalition operations for countermine about actually two years ago now where we did the international countermine exercise, pretty standard name, and 20 some countries came and demonstrated their interest and their capability and their commitment to keeping the strait of hormuz open. and that deterrent effect in iran, who was threatening, you know, at that point to mine the strait of hormuz, to focus our attention on countermine -- not in iran, but on countermine -- had a great deterrent effect and changed, really, the behavior of the iranian navy. >> well, thank you, admiral. i'm afraid we have to leave it there. please, everyone join me in thanking admiral greenert. >> thank you all very much. [applause]

>> veterans day is tomorrow, and big changes are about to take place in seat irans care -- veterans care. new secretary robert mcdonald saying that the largest restructuring in the department's history is underway, and at least 35 people will be fired and as many as a thousand will follow. the action follows a nationwide scandal this summer over the thousands of veterans waiting for health care. the story goes on to say mcdonald also hopes to hire 28,000 medical professionals to join the agency's hospitals and clinics around the country, including about 2500 mental health professionals. president obama is traveling internationally this week. he's in china today for a weeklong trip to the asia-pacific region beginning with the asia-pacific economic cooperation forum. on wednesday the president will meet with the chinese president, thursday and friday he'll be in myanmar for more economic meetings and wrap it up with a

visit to australia for the g20 leaders' summit. and back here in washington both the house and senate return to wrap up work for the 113th congress. the house is back wednesday for debate on ten bills including updating the presidential records act. house republican conference has scheduled leadership elections for thursday, democrats are set to hold theirs november 18th. the senate is also back wednesday with votes expected on judicial nominations and a childcare development block grant program. off the floor both parties will hold leadership elections on thursday. and, of course, you can see the house live on c-span, the senate right here on c-span2. the c-span cities tour takes booktv and american history tv on the road traveling to u.s. cities to learn about their history and literary life. this weekend we partnered with charter communications for a visit to madison, wisconsin. >> the community is large. it is a growing service.

this service for the country, the call comes to every citizen. it is an unending struggle to make and keep government representative. >> bob la follette is probably one of the most important political figures in the history of the 20th century in the united states. he was a reforming governor, he defined what progressivism is. he was one of the first to use the term "progressive" to self-identify. he was a united states senator who was recognized by his peers in the 1950s as one of the five greatest senates in american history -- senators in american history. he was an opponent of world war i, stood his ground advocating for free speech. above all, bob la follette was about the people. in the era of the civil war,

america changed radically from a nation of small farmers and small producers and small manufacturers, and by the late 1870s, 1880s, 1890s, we had concentrations of wealth, we had growing ip equality -- inequality, and we had concern about the influence of money in government. so he spent the later part of the 1890s giving speeches all over wisconsin. if you wanted a speaker for your club or your group, bob la follette would give a speech. he went to county fairs, he went to every kind of event that you could imagine and built a reputation for himself. by 1900 he was ready to run for governor, advocating on behalf of the people. and he had two issues; one, direct primary. no more selecting candidates in convention.

two, stop the interests. specifically, the railroads. >> watch all of our events from madison saturday at noon eastern on credit card span 2's booktv -- c-span2's booktv and sunday at two on american history tv on c-span3. >> the 2015 c-span student cam video competition is underway, open to all middle and high school students on the theme "the three branches and you" showing iew a policy -- how a policy of the government has affected you or your community. there's 200 cash prizes for students and teachers totaling $100,000. for the list of rules and how to get started, go to studentcam.org. >> last month connecticut senator christopher murphy outlined his recent trip to the balkans and discussed the importance of u.s. engagement in the region. he serves as the chair for the

subcommittee on european affairs. held at johns hopkins school of international studies, this is about an hour. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning. i'm the dean of johns hopkins university's school of advanced international studies, and we are very honored today to host senator chris murphy, united states senator for connecticut, as a keynote speaker here at sais. senator murphy recently returned from a visit to the balkans where he visited kosovo, serbi croatia, albania and montenegro. today he will share his impressions of the visit with us and why the united states needs to reengage in this very

important region. senator murphy's remarks come at a critical time for the balkans which continues to cope with the techs associated with the break up of yugoslavia. at the same time, countries like serbia andal baena hope to broaden -- albania hope to broaden the regional scope by seeking membership in the european union. and the added pull of foreign interests such as russian money and the flow of foreign fighters from the balkans to the middle east reveals a region whose strategic importance and geopolitical position is in flux. as a member of the senate foreign relations committee and a past member of the house foreign affairs committee, senator murphy knows all of these issues very well and has dealt with them for some tomb. senator -- some time. senator murphy also serves on the health, education, labor and pensions committee and the joint economic committee. prior to joining the senate in

2012, senator murphy served three terms in the u.s. house of representatives and eight years in the connecticut general assembly. finally, i would like to thank sais' center for transatlantic relations, the go-to place in washington for analysis and activities on the balkans. and with that, i would like to now turn the floor to senator murphy. [applause] >> well, thank you very much for that very nice introduction. thank you to my great friend, dan hamilton, all the great work he does at the center, for hosting me here today. thank you for joining us. i know that washington's focus and the country's focus is in other places these days, that we're getting ready for an election four days away, we're getting ready for halloween this evening, so it's wonderful to see such a nice turnout here to

talk about a summit that i know -- sausage that i know this center and that sais as an institution has spent an enormous amount of attention thinking on not just over the course of the last 20 years, but leading this conversation about how we reinvest in the balkans over the course of the last year or so. bill shankly, the famous scottish footballer, he once said that some people think that football is a matter of life and death. he said i assure you, it is much more important than that. i saw this firsthand during my trip recently to the balkan regions. on tuesday, october 21st, i landed in belgrade, serbia, the first stop on a five-country trip in the balkan region. my travels as chairman of the senate foreign relations subcommittee on european affairs would bring me to serbia, montenegro, kosovo, albania and croatia. within a few hours of landing in

belgrade, i was handed the frame for my trip. at a soccer match between the serbian national team and the albanian national team, provocateurs piloted a small drone over the stadium during the first half of play. hanging from the drone was a simple flag portraying a map of the imagined territory of greater albania, a fictional state unifying all albanians living in the balkans. the atmosphere of the game was tense to begin with. the albanians had complained that the serbian authorities weren't allowing some albanian journalists into the stadium, the serbian fans were shouting inflammatory taunts at the albanian players, and the drone in a lot of ways was the last straw. it promised a melee to break out on the field and amongst the confusing launch of players and spectators. the game was called off, episodes of isolated -- isolated episodes, i will say, of violence and vandalism run led

across the -- rippled across the region. the historic meeting between prime ministers was postponed, and the entire world was reminded of two things. first, football is sometimes more important than life and death and, two, the ethnic peace that has settled on top of the balkan region over the past decade is still very thin and very brittle. it was only 15 short years ago that congress was consumed with the question of the balkans. war had broken out in europe. allegations of genocide and mass atrocities rang loudly throughout the community of nations. america debated with passion over the right response and, ultimately, president clinton dispatched american planes and troops. troops that are still there to this day. september 11th turned our nation's attention to other parts of the world, and quite honestly, american involvement and interest in the bag cannes has receded -- balkans has

receded consistently year after year over the course of the last decade. so today i want to argue that the balkans merit our continued attention. now, we are right to be much more focused today on conflicts in the middle east. we are right as a nation to turn our attention to the emerging power of china within the asian theater. but my argument today is going to be simple, that there are still at this moment some relatively low cost, high reward interventions that we can make in the balkans. but that our window of influence may be a narrow one. so i'm going to lay out three primary reasons why i think we should reinvest in the balkan region and then outline several specific recommendations about how we do it. so the first reason we should reinvest is a pretty obvious one. we shouldn't take for granted that the ethnic, religious and

political peace that has largely held within the region since the conflicts of the 1990s is permanent. that a flag at a soccer game could result in two prime ministers postponing a historic diplomatic meeting tells you all you need to know about the nature of this fragile peace in the region. i met with prime the prime minir the morning after the match and, quite honestly, he was filled with fire and brimstone, warning this incident was going to greatly set back ethnic reconciliation efforts. i heard similar concerns when i took a trip to albania later in the week. now, to be sure, major breakthroughs have been achieved. who could have guessed five years ago that serbia would be on a path to normalize relationships and, ultimately, recognize the existence with kosovo? and despite the fact that the prime minister's visit to belgrade has been put off, the visit of an albanian leader to serbia is still a momentous

event whenever it occurs. still, memories of the war are fresh, and potential flashpoints lurk everywhere. peace cannot be taken for granted. second, as our nation's attention appropriately turns to the fight against isis in iraq and syria, we should pay attention, close attention, to the growing numbers of foreign fighters who are being recruited in the balkans. up until recently there really has been no tradition of islamic extremism in places like kosovo or albania or bosnia. and even today extremist mosques are an outlier, exceptions to the rule. muslims in the balkans are serious about their religion, but they are secular states, secular cultures where people define themselves much more by their ethnicity than by religion. but money from terrorist funders has begun to creep into the balkans, and some estimates suggest that over 900 young -- 200 young men from kosovo alone have already been recruited into the ranks of isis. this happens in part because of

the epidemic rates of unemployment and poverty amongst young people. in most balkan nations including kosovo, upwards of 50% of young men are without jobs. this disconnection and disaffection leaves the region ripe for isis recruiters who promise handsome sums of money to young men who have few, if any, alternatives to provide for their families. and isis is, apparently, developing a safe haven within syria for these men with reports that an albanian community exists somewhere inside or near the conflict zone, a friendly harbor for foreign terrorists who are arriving from the balkans. luckily, our friends in the region have -- maybe perhaps a bit late -- recognized this threat. and they're mounting a credible response. i met with the new president of kosovo, and i thanked her for recent enforcement actions that have rounded up about 15 terrorist recruiters within kosovo. with u.s. assistance, law enforcement in the region is getting better at finding and arresting the bad actors, and

this will make a difference in the fight going forward. the third reason for u.s. involvement is probably the most important and the most relevant to the conversation that we're hag here in washington -- having here in washington about the new order within europe and eastern europe. to put it bluntly, the u.s. pulls back involvement in the region, russia is sitting on the doorstep ready to take our place. i returned from my trip to the balkans more worried about increasing russian influence within the region and what that might mean for our interests there. now, don't misunderstand what i'm about to say. i'm not making a cold war, neoimperialist argument where any position on the chess board occupied by russia is automatically a loss for us. in fact, i said over and over again when i was in the region that we don't view geopolitics in the same way russia does. these are countries that should be able to have a relationship with russia and the united states and europe and that we

should be careful not to play the same zero sum game -- you're with us or against us argument -- that russia makes in the region. but i do believe that we will be better off with a secure, noncorrupt, democratic governance in the region, and i'm skeptical that such will be vladimir putin's legacy if he is able to win more influence within the region. in belgrade you can literally feel the growing russian influence in the city's air. drive around and you'll see billboard after billboard with the russian and serbian flags wrapped together in an embrace with a small, barely visible gas prom logo in the bottom corner. [laughter] on the day of my visit, the city was preparing for a visit by president putin, and the prime minister had organized a soviet-style military parade to coincide with putin's visit. as the deafennenning sound of mig fighter jets zoomed over the top of belgrade's skyline,

no one seemed alarmed by this rather extraordinary display of foreign military power. and if you ask ordinary serbians what they think of russia, they will almost universeally tell you they view russia with some affection. this is, of course, natural considering the history of russian military support dating back to the fight against the ottomans and extending to today when a friendship/alliance with russia reminds serbia's neighbors that it has a unique relationship that it could lean on in tough times. coming off a decade of war that ultimately rejected the notion of a pan-serbian state, serbia's still infoozed -- infused with a sense of humiliation over its defeat and sees its relationship with russia as a means to flex its muscle in the region. russia is actively probing ways to extend its influence in serbia. it still hopes to build the gas pipeline through serbia, increasing dependence of serbia and the entire balkan region on

russian energy. and even more dangerous, there's talk that russia seeks to expand its military partnership with serbia, perhaps co-locating russian and serbian troops somewhere in serbia. now, serbia, for the time being, believes that it cantraddle a relationship with the u.s. and europe on one hand and russia on the other hand. and there's no denying that the prime minister truly does want an economic future with europe. he wouldn't have supported and helped to implement the historic agreement normalizing relationships with kosovo if he didn't think it was required to stay on an e.u. path. but in other areas he's sided with putin, most recently when he rejected requests from the e.u. to join in the u.s./e.u. sanctions against russia over its invasion of ukraine. now, again, serbia should be able, ultimately, to have it both ways. serbia should be able to have a relationship with russia and a relationship with the european union. but i left belgrade seeing some alarming parallels with ukraine.

these are apples and and oranges. but former ukrainian president yanukovych sought to have it both ways too. but in the long process of application to and negotiation with the european union, it left russia with plenty of time to use a panoply of sticks and carrots to lure yanukovych back into the russian orbit. serbia isn't getting a full invite to join the e.u. anytime soon, and this leaves plenty of time for russia to increase its leverage over belgrade and to, ultimately, force it to choose mother russia or europe and the united states. that forced choice in kiev resulted in chaos s and we shouldn't let it happen again. now, in montenegro, russian ties aren't as strong, but their intentions for gaining influence are no less than in serbia. and we have a good ally in the prime minister. his intentions are clear. he wants his country to be a nato ally as soon as possible, and he wants full membership in

the european union. but russia sees this glaring nato gap on the aidly yachtic and hasn't given up trying to step in and fill the role as montenegro's protector. russia would like nothing more than to have a proxy in the muddle of nato's balkan arm. it's an open secret that putin has made several multibillion dollar offers to site a military base in montenegro. that kind of money for a small, economically-struggling country is hard to keep passing up over and over. and russia is finding other ways into montenegro. like in serbia, they're funneling lots of media to buy -- money to buy media outlets and influence ngos, and they're becoming major landowners. i visited a housing developer, and the majority of multibillion dollar units he was selling there was to russians. there's so much russian money along the coast that as you drive along the road, many of the roadside signs are actually

in russian. all this influence is paying off. polls show there is a decreasing enthusiasm for montenegro to join nato, even while the majority of parliament supports the move. disturbingly, it is hard for montenegro to turn a blind eye to russian money and influence. so to summarize what could happen if the united states continues to allow its influence and its presence in the balkans to fade, first, there's a chance that ethnic and political tensions could boil over again, resulting in another global flashpoint. second, foreign money could incentivize the radicalization of certain elements of balkan islam leading to more foreign fighters leaving the region and coming back to places like kosovo. and third, russia could see the balkans as the next front in their expansionist aims and seek to blow holes in the territory of nato and the european union. luckily, it is not too late to do something about this. and america still has significant advantages and assets from which to draw. most importantly, it's important

to note that we are generally very well thought of in the balkans. albania reveres america. bill clinton has a street named after him. and even in a place like serbia, our great embassy there has done really important work to improve our image in the post-war era. but also we have some relatively low cost cards to play. all of these countries want a closer relationship with both europe and with the united states. we don't need to convince balkan leaders to walk next to us, we just have to actually execute. so let me leave you with a few specific recommendations for how the united states can reinvest both diplomatically and economically and militarily in the balkans. first, with russia seeking to maintain influence over serbia today, belgrade needs to know that the united states is leaning into our bilateral relationship, not out of it. the high-level visit from the obama visit would be an important signal that the u.s.

values this relationship. that would be a relatively easy thing to do with disproportional benefit to pretty minor cost. but the other steps aren't hard either. the united states is withdrawing aid. usaid, which funds efforts in serbia to improve democratic institutions and the rule of law, has seen major cuts in the past few years. we should reverse these cuts, restore the money and let belgrade know we're going to be a partner for years to come. and the united states can play a much larger role in helping serbia on a path to the e.u., this is serbia's intent without a doubt. but in the case of ukraine, the e.u. mismanaged the application process, giving kiev too many excuses to turn away to russia. now, with good reason the united states doesn't like to get involved in the weeds of the e.u. asession process, but we can't afford to sit on the sidelines on this one. the e.u.'s inability to close a deal with yanukovych ultimately drew the united states into a major international crisis. i'm not saying that serbia is

teed up for that same kind of moment, but as a friend of both brussels and belgrade, the u.s. can play a more active role than we have in helping to keep the e.u. process moving along constructively. second, i believe that nato should offer membership to montenegro as soon as possible. russia's trying to muddy the waters as quickly as possible inside montenegro, and we shouldn't just assume that montenegro will continue to spurn russia's security offers if nato continues to spurn montenegro. the reasons to keep montenegro out of the alliance just don't hold water any longer. yes, the country has a long way to go when it comes to the rule of law and the freedom of the press, but this is an incredibly young nation, and modern democracy takes time. and it's worth asking the question whether they'll get there faster as part of nato's umbrella or putin's. finally, we shouldn't fear upsetting russia over a nato invitation to montenegro. in fact, we should fear the opposite.

if russia's aggression in ukraine chills or worse, ends nato's open door policy, then we're simply encouraging them to engage in this bullying. the best signal to send nato -- russia right now is that nato is open for business and growing along the lines and roles it traditionally has. third, we should increase our partnership with existing nato allies in the region. i'll give you one specific example on how we can do this. in croix way shah, a dependent bl ally of the united states, they still rely on russian hardware in their military. the croatians want to start buying u.s.-made black blackhawks, but they need the help of the united states to help them locate at least a few used blackhawks so they can save some money and given this transition -- begin this transition period. if we do this, if we have the will to do this, if the balkans were a true priority, we could find a way, and we should. finally, i'll give you a simple idea for the region.

a reason that, by and large, savors its connection to america. exchange programs are in great demand primarily because of their inability to access our visa waiver program. it makes travel very different. i met with a group of students who had spent just a few, mere weeks in the united states, but they were so enthusiastic, they were practically appendages of our embassy there. if we were to take scant resources to make a commitment to double exchange programs for balkan students to come to the united states through great programs like open world over the next five year, it would make an enormous difference in small nations like these having a small, vocal group of pro-u.s. voices who can speak about the real america from firsthand experience. it'll pay enormous dividends. so these are some practical, reasonable, and i would argue relatively low impact, low cost steps the united states can take to reassert our presence and our

priority over in the balkans. it's a region that congress and the state department used to know really well, but other crises have caused us to lose a little bit too much focus on this critical region. and as our sight lines move to different regions of the world, appropriately, russian eyes are becoming transfixed on the balkans as their potential next project. it's a difficult region to understand, and i think in the end that's why a lot of members of congress choose not to focus there any longer. as i left my meeting with the serbian foreign minister, he put a hand on my back, and he told me, he said the best advice i have for someone who is trying to comprehend the balkans is, don't. well, it's certainly not that inscrutable, and it's worth our time and attention. we've put too much american blood and treasure into this region to turn away now. these are proud nations full of wonderful, proud people with strong connections here in the united states, not least of which to my state of

connecticut. and the good news is that today, as we sit here now, a little more u.s. effort in the balkans will go an awful long way. thank you very much for having me here today. [applause] >> my name's dan hamilltop, i direct the center -- hamilton. we're also part of a consortium of all of our fellow universities in washington on e.u. studies, so if we have colleagues here from the other universities, i want to welcome them as well. senator, thank you so much for joining us. as was said, we've been working a lot on the balkans over many years and many of my colleagues also in the government doing that. we have to do a little advertisement. of course, we have a book on the balkans that was done a while ago. i think it's, the title is important at least for the context of what the senator said, "unfinished business."

after investing so much energy and time in this region, there's this temptation to retrench and to look at, obviously admittedly, huge challenges elsewhere. and i think the senator's provided a good list of practical things to do. let's start off the conversation, senator, you know, as you say, the balkans, a complex place. a lot of shifting dynamics and variables. but in the context of what you were saying, maybe the ultimate variable is still the united states itself. so even what you say are the low cost initiatives, i wonder if you could reflect a bit on what you think the real appetite is here in the united states, either the administration or the congress, to provide the types of support that you're sort of asking for, the type of focus, energy, time when there's so

many other challenges facing the united states. how do we do this? one of your suggestions on nato membership for montenegro, obviously, would directly involve the senate. and it's -- so it's not just a question about the u.s., about the state department or the administration, it's really, you know, what's the mood, how do you -- yo you really -- do you really think we could reengage in the way you're suggesting? >> as i said at the outset, i don't want to overplay my argument. we are appropriately focusing on other parts of the world, whether it be the middle east or asia, and the way in which we've organized our state department has required our great assistant secretary of state, victoria nuland, to focus more of her attention on the crisis in ukraine over the focus of the last year. she made a very well received trip to the baltic region several months ago, several of her deputies and officials within the department of defense

have been there recently. and so i think the question has been just within the state department there's been some difficulty in acquiring enough oxygen with which to address the crisis in ukraine and the crisis in the balkans. i think that there is growing interest in at least the senate to think about this region because i think we are starting to try to think about what the lessons are from ukraine. again, i don't want to draw, you know, direct parallels here because i don't think that the russian influence inside a place like serbia is as nefarious as it maybe is in some states north. but, you know, some small investment in preventative maintenance of the u.s. bilateral relationship with places like serbia and montenegro can go a long way. and so i think that there is going to be some growing interest as we reconvene in the senate to think about how we avoid another crisis like ukraine.

and there's no doubt that putin is feeling friskier than ever when it comes to the countries on his periphery, and at the very least there's plenty of evidence, this military parade at the top of the list, to suggest that he's got some designs when out comes to countries within the balkans. so i think ukraine gives us the fertile territory to make this argument to colleagues that now is the time to do some things necessary to prevent another crisis from occurring. >> all right, thank you. well, as i said, we are quite engaged on balkan issues, and i have a few colleagues who are working on this all the time. one of our colleagues just came back from bosnia, in fact, and just had a piece in the huffington post yesterday about the situation there. mike, why don't you join in the conversation here, and there's a mic right here. >> oh, okay, thank you.

senator, thank you very, very much. i think it was a forceful, nuanced, really terrific presentation, and i, basically, agree with every word that you said, so i'd like to take it a little bit farther. i mean, i think the united states -- to use lyndon johnson's term -- you know, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. and i think you're perfectly right. this is not a zero sum thing. we can concentrate on the middle east, on central asia, on china and still have a lot of capital, both physical and financial, left over for the balkans. i think your itinerary was superb, and you doesn't have all the -- you didn't have all the time in the world. you couldn't hit every country. two you didn't hit were bosnia and macedonia. and i would just like to put in a plug for including both of those countries in the agenda that you've put forth. we're, obviously, very heavily invested in bosnia. we were the country that put an

end to the horrible combination civil war and foreign intervention from 1992 to '95. we still have a lot of street credibility in the country. believe it or not, even in some of the serbian areas of the country. i think that beneath the headlines from the election a week and a half ago which the headline, quote-unquote, nationalist being reelected, there was a lot of ferment, there was a lot of reform, and i would hope that the u.s. embassy -- which is doing great work there, incidentally, would reengage on constitutional reform, especially the electoral law. and that's key. macedonia, and, of course, it's key because of the ties to russia there. >> right. >> it's not just to serbia proper. i think we have to help a multi-ethnic bosnia succeed. and secondly, macedonia. if we could get the name issue

settled, both sides -- the greeks and the macedonians -- have not been as tactful, shall we say, as they might. it's an emotional issue, but it's eminently solvable. and macedonia would get into nato immediately if the name issue were solved. they passed all the qualifications with flying colors. and this also has relevance to ntenegro because there are people who say how could we have a round of one, let alone one tiny little country? i think it's faulty logic, but the fact is it would be immediately a round of two. and we have, also, the amazing goodwill in both countries, greece and macedonia, and if we don't solve that, then i'm afraid some of the ethnic problems within macedonia itself with the ethnic albanian, 0% of the -- 30% of the country, integrated to some extent but not nearly as much as they should be and their ongoing

problems could spill over. rather than ask you a question because i think your presentation was just so fantastic, i'd like to put in a plug for while we're doing it, extend the activism to those two countries. >> i, i'm in whole hearted agreement. the only thing worse than a round of one is another round of zero. we are, we are slowly shutting the open door and, clearly, there are some immense difficulties with countries like georgia that make it difficult to, you know, extend full membership. we need to make it clear to everyone, to our allies in the region and to our adversaries, that the same rules still apply in nato. you know, in macedonia, you know, it strikes me that we sort of took for granted for a long time the progress that was being made there, and that progress has largely stopped and started to recede in terms of the quality of its democracy and the rule of law. and that's what i worry about for the region writ large.

i mean, i -- my presentation was maybe overly pessimistic because you can tell a whole different story about the region. i mean, you can talk about the progress that a tiny little country like montenegro has made, the agreement between serbia and kosovo, a relatively long period of stable governments as a really optimistic view of the region. but as europe starts to get less enthusiastic about extending membership and the specter of another bull compare ya and romania chills ambitions -- bulgaria and romania chills ambitions, as nato sends mixed signals about whether we're serious about expanding, then the imperative for continued reform starts to wane. the reality is that a euro-atlantic, transatlantic future is what really drove a lot of these countries in part to get serious about democratic reforms. and so as an overarching theme, one of the reasons why i think nato has to extend an offer to

montenegro is because someone within the transatlantic security and economic alliance has to show there is still an ability to join because that's what will continue, in part, will continue to prompt reform, and bosnia is a perfect example of that. i think right now europe's going to have to figure out a way to be more creative in terms of using europe as a carrot. it's not a carrot right now for many of those leaders who are much more attached to the gains that they get out of the current arrangement and the sacrifices they would have to make in order to join europe. but europe still has cards to play there, they're just going to have to play them in a way different than today. >> one of our colleagues is with us today, dan, i wonder if you can participate here right here? the mic? >> if i could stop tweeting for a moment. tweet and speak, that's -- >> i want to see you do that.

[laughter] >> that's truly chewing gum and walking at the same time. >> senator, you know, one of the things that has to be done before we can truly say that the balkans is finished is to completely normalize the relationship between kosovo and serbia. that means, for me, recognition and diplomatic relations. europe and the united states have tended to think that that should be put off. i'm wondering what your view is. should this be put off, or should we be saying what's true to belgrade in particular, the prime minister also, that without this you're not going to make the progress you really want to make? >> i don't think that it gets any easier as time passes.

and so this is an easy thing for the prime minister and others to just push on down the road. if there's a belief that this will be easier two or three or four years from now, i'm not sure that that's the case. listen, i was, you know, i was very impressed with the dialogue and the general acceptance of the direction that normalization was going to take, and so in every meeting that we had in belgrade there was very little resistance to the movement that was needed going forward. and similarly in the prime minister. there's an easy excuse right now to explain the lack of progress on implementing this first agreement which is the lack of a government, and when i was there, i chose actually not to meet with any of the political leadership there, and i think i sent a pretty strong message that if kosovo's not serious about putting together a coalition government, then it

really is starting to harm its relationship with its friends, visiting delegations are curtailing their visits, as i did, because of the political uncertainty. bu i was generally impressed with the way in which people talked about the dialogues, the inevitability that i sensed when it came to full normalization. but i do agree with you that i think we're going to need to probably deliver a little stronger message sooner rather than later to belgrade about full diplomatic recognition because it likely won't get any easier if people perceive this to be the new normal, kind of halfway to that full stage of recognition. >> okay. we can open up now for more of questions and comments from others. if you -- we have the mics. if you can say who you are first so that the senator has a sense of where you're coming from, that'd be useful. yes, right here.

>> good morning. [inaudible] first of all, i'd like to thank the senator for his visit and his engagement in our region. i think it's very useful, and it happened in really interesting period of time. i actually had -- [inaudible] what was stated before, actually noi have two remarks and one question. one of the remarks is regarding the -- [inaudible] with ukraine. i mean, i'm not sure that it actually worked that well with serbia, because we are some essential differences. i understand that there is source for russians' care, but at the same time country has pretty much engaged strongly with the e.u. accession. and what they stated in some other round tables is that the thing that might not only worry about serbia, but balkans which

you correctly noted is the fact that disengagement from some other places like brussels or washington might actually lead to some undesirable or problematic developments. on the full recognition, you're aware of the serbian position, and that's the thing i had to react -- [inaudible] the thing is that we're fully committed -- [inaudible] which you probably saw during belgrade meetings. and what we were doing actually in this past month before, between march of this year until now is pretty much mull laterally -- multilaterally -- [inaudible] we had some progress on the freedom of movement and other topics. and my question, actually, is what's your feeling both here -- especially, actually, here -- on discussing and providing some alternatives since there's obviously some sort of -- [inaudible] with e.u., and there's obviously

need for more engagement. so what's your feeling about readiness to engage here, and did you get the chance to maybe discuss on some concrete alternatives when it comes to the energy investment which are obviously needed in the region? thank you. >> yeah. no, it's clear. i think it's a really good point. it's clear our focus cannot only be on e.u. accession because we are just not certain as to the timetable. i still remain certain that there's a willingness in brussels, but clearly it's going to take a while toet from here to there. so that means that we've got to have an even stronger bilateral relationship. and so while i was there, we talked very specifically about some ways in which u.s. companies and the u.s. government can engage with belgrade. as you know, for instance, there's a major debate happening there about the future of a major steel facility, a u.s. company that we think can provide fairly substantial

answer, and hopefully we'll be able to engage in making that connection happen. similarly on energy, our, our policy here can't simply be to tell countries like serbia they can't do south stream period, stop. we've actually got to provide some alternative. and we have that ability as a country that has figured out how to put ourselves on a path to energy independence by developing our own resources. we can deliver that kind of technological assistance to our friends. and so i think that, you know, i tried to make it very clear how important this issue of south stream is to the united states and, frankly, i wish that some of, you know, our representatives from the state department and from the white house would make that case even stronger. i feel very, very strongly about the importance of moving south stream only along a process that

is in accordance with e.u. law. but the united states and europe needs to tell a country like serbia what the alternatives are. that means robustly moving on other pipeline projects that will have branches available to balkan nations and also delivering technology to allow for the development -- this is not initially the case in serbia, but in other countries offshore -- energy resources, potential fracking, tight gas, tight oil resources. the united states needs b tock a little bit more -- to be a little bit more of an active player. and, again, i've said this a couple times but your comment makes it worth repeating, i really don't want to overplay this parallel that i'm making. and in part by criticism is of the way that the e.u. has handled many of these processes. i think the european union has been existing in a world where previous to the last several years in which there is no alternative to the e.u.

well, there is an alternative to the e.u. now as russia seeks to create stronger relationships. and so the e.u. has to be smarter, brussels has to be a bit more flexible in the way in which it approaches these processes. and so, you know, my caution here is, you know, not necessarily that there's any insincerity in belgrade. i'm sure the prime minister is dedicated to a european path, but that has to be a reasonable pathway that recognizes some of the differences in all of these countries who, you know, seek to pursue it. >> senator, if i can follow up on that, because the energy point, i think, is quite critical. so you were proposing a number of ways europeans could get reorganized or sort of approach and support, but the united states could also be a major energy actor in europe. but that will require, again, action here to allow that to happen. and i wonder what your sense of either different kind of legislation or changing

procedures so that the u.s. would actually be actively engaged as an energy actor itself. >> so this is a whole other topic for, you know, another hour, right? this is a fascinating moment in the united states today. we have this new asset which is largely accrued, fairly solely to the benefit of the american economy, this robust deposit of natural gas and oil that has been part of the story as to why the u.s. economy is growing in the last quarter at 3.5 percent while all of our friends around the world in the industrialized world look with envy. and i don't think that the united states should ever view our energy resources the same way that russia views theirs. i don't want energy to become a tool or a weapon. but we have had scant discussion or debate in the u.s. congress about how to simply interweave

energy policy with national security policy. how do we at least help our friends, if setting aside the question of how to punish our enemies or our adversaries? ..

is there an ability to target some of those resources to some parts of the world that have little other option than to rely on russia today without going down the road that russia has, which is using it is a fairly daily, weekly tool to influence relations with neighbors. i think there is ground but it's really remarkable the united states congress is in having this discussion, especially when the place could unite republicans and democrats. there's lots of things that separate republicans and democrats with energy policy, but we generally are attracted to the idea of using these resources to help some of our friends. that requires changing u.s. law to allow for the targeted export as the u.s. natural gas and a change in u.s. law to allow for the export of oil. on the international markets. again, if we are going to be sending a message to a country like serbia, notwithstanding a

conflict found in ukraine, then we've got to be open to some alternatives. >> yes, right here, please. we for the microphone. >> hello. my name is -- i am a member of the parliament of macedonia, currently visiting washington d.c. at the beginning i would like to compliment the senator for the presentation which pretty much covered everything and as suicide a bit earlier, i actually agree with everything that was said. i would like to just briefly mention a few aspects were u.s. assist them in developing macedonia's democracy has been a remarkable importance. and then i would certainly enlist the partnership corp.

we've had with of course the embassy in the u.s. presence in supporting macedonia's government and authorities to implement the very complex and sensitive power-sharing arrangement ,-com,-com ma which is the ultimate agreement. and for the u.s. assistance in the interest in focusing macedonia as part of the western balkans has to continue and become even more stronger. and then, there is certainly the support that we have political parties have been receiving by both the npi and the iri, strengthening our democracy is then improving the quality of our parliamentary -- notions of parliament area some rather and take a nap in establishing making sure that we have actually a functioning political dial that, which has the senator rightly pointed to was at the moment pretty critical in

talking about the quality of macedonia's democracy, i am sure there will be another hour or more of discussions. not to mention then the importance of the u.s. ideas and founding and helping the country to establish a functioning model of integrated education in a country that has been extremely polarized along ethnic and religious lines. >> benefit, these are really good examples. you should be an advocate for the u.s. engagement brickmaking difference. but is there something that's missing? >> yes, something that is missing and actually my question, the senator mentioned that the u.s. has to engage itself more to help serbia on its path to the eu. by trying to draw an analogy, i would like to ask whether the senator would see a possibility of such a u.s. engagement, for

instance, throwing the framework of enabling macedonia to both start negotiations on e.u. membership, which is a model that has been promoted and supported by the government. so would you see there is a possibility for something like that? similar to what we see in the croatian process of both negotiated memberships and overcoming the bilateral issue. thank you. >> well, i think we've got to make that decision in coordination with our allies in brussels. i think probably we are best served as i mentioned to focus our time now on trying to settle this main issue because even if you begin the negotiations, you still have to figure that out before you get to any final agreement. but i think you are making a powerful argument for why the u.s. has to continue to be involved.

usaid is and has made real progress in a relatively small amount of money we are spending in these countries enter and deceive goes a long way. and so as you are this larger debate here about how we apportion resources to protect u.s. national security intests and we watch the state department lose that by on an annual basis, the balkans is a great advertisement for why companies to at least hold the line on funding for usaid at the state department becau that money is what allows for countries like macedonia to continue hopefully make enough progress. i will just note the agreement, i just want to know some concern about the implementation of that agreement. i have a large, in my state i have a large acetone and come albanian population with thoughts of friends back home who are frustrated about the

lack of process and the lack of integration. you mention the specific process, which is the implementation of the system. this is something i wish i'd been able to raise an macedonia because it comes up very often in my conversations back in connecticut. >> so, i am a university professor. i read your fascinating book and your lecture was also exellent. i am coming back to the old colleague from serbia mentioned, promising information from both croatian prime minister and the amendment dealing with the

creation part of this leading energy comp any idea -- [inaudible] >> so quick primer for people who don't know this issue. this is a national energy company that is effectively owned jointly by ahungarian entity and the croatian government effectively controlled now by this ontarian entity. there is a long-running dispute between the two major ownership entities and thre has been expressed a willingness and desire on behalf of a more, the hungarian wing of the ownership structure and has shown an interest in selling. and you are right that the issue here is the creation and construction of the alternative. they would like nothing more to

get their hands on a major distribution network of gasoline, primarily within crotia. i mentioned in my blog, my e-mail that i wrote about my trip, that i did hear unequivocally from the prime minister and the president and from everyone i met with in croatia that there was no appetite for selling the croatian portion of this company to gas problem and research solicitation of offers. i don't actually believe they put an offer on the table and so i think that they are distracted by other crises right now and so their interest may have waned. but the u.s. does need to play a more active role ihelping to find this alternative. it may be that an alternative needs some form of international financing from the e.u. or the united states.

the amount of money that is at stake is a large one. it is not clar whether there is actual a vehicle in the united states to help finance the purchase of something as big as dna. but i've been very encouraging. i've had a number of conversations with the state department, encouraging them to play a more active role. now, there is also a potential process of mediatiobetween croatia and hungary over the dispute of control of this entity. i wish that croatia was little more willing to enter into that mediation process. so far i don't think we have heard from them on the selection of a mediator. there is no reason why you could not the same time double track of mediation between croatia and hungary and the pursuit of a potential alternate investor. right now i feel that croatia views this as binary and the sense they would much rather

pursue an alternative ambassador, rather than pursue this arbitration. i think that we feel both could happen at the same time. >> the senator is on a tight schedule. i promise to get him menu out on time. i want to thank senator murphy for joining us and his great team. thank you so much and thanks to our great team for putting this all together. we will try to get the senator's remarks if he will allow us and distribute as well so you can add notes on our website a bit later. otherwise, thank you all for coming and we look forward to seeing you again. please join me in thanking senator murphy. [applse] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> the people who oppose prioritization should take a look at the internet, the ip for hatter, the magic to make the

internet work, the one language ever was beat. there's something called the type of service classes. the hype in the services. that was designed to be and not from the beginning. people say that it's an old artifact. well,when we need to design because we were running out of and are not addresses, they actually include another fuel called label fuel to do another prioritization cause. so if you actually look at the engineering design to suggest this was never intended -- prioritization was never intended to be loud, little engineering knowledge goes a long way. it's a design feature from the beginning and if you talk to the way people are using it today to deliver voice service. we've all been frustrated. the true completely i.t.-based voice service to your phone is called voiceover ltv. i'll use prioritization, the

only way to make the call. >> actress jennifer lawrence recently fitted the exposure of her personal photographs on the internet should be considered a sex crime. last week on capitol hill the congressional internet caucus advisory looked at the legal ramifications attacking private voters in so-called revenge porn situations. this is just a half an hour. [inaudible conversations] >> i welcome everybody. my name is tim gordon, executive director of the internet caucus advisory committee. thank you for as sending this briefing. hopefully we will get you out of here in 60 minutes or so.

ths topic is on your program. the twitter information is on there as well as is the information of the speakers and their twitter account you can contact them on twitter or any other way you would like. we are hosting this event by the congressional internet caucus of kayseri committee in conjunction with the internet caucus and its cochairs. on the house side, congressman bob goodlatte and congresswoman anna eshoo. senator john thune and patrick leahy. they don't agree on every issue and frankly not on a lot of issues, but we are thrilled that they agree that the internet should have a place or we can debate these issues with expert speakers like we have today. so i want to thank them and our moderators today is tal kopan. she is with "politico." she has covered this quite a bit over the past several years and she is perfectly situated to

moderate our panel today and her twitter account information is on the program as well. so tal, take it away. >> thank you, tim and thank you for having me here today. it is a very interesting topic, which we'll be diving into pretty much at first to introduce our panel, sort of from here down on. we have god mary ann franks, the associate professor of law at the university of miami school of law. to her last is an alonso, dredger the free expression project for technology. ross perot was a columnist and david post, contributor at the volokh conspiracy and "washington post".com. all of these have a lot of expertise, topics from a lot of different angles, which is sort of how i wanted to start off today. one of the most interesting games today about the hack of celebrity photos is that raises a lot of different issues for a lot of different people.

as a cybersecurity reporter, i covered in terms of password security on the cloud and at the technical aspects of the hack might've been in with the dark web would do at these pictures. a reasonable number of conversations from misogyny on the internet to what actually is the nature of the crime that occurred on the whether you look at it from a perspective of jennifer lawrence as a sex crime, is there a first amendment issue here and expect we will touch on most different takeaways today. how i wold like to begin visit each of the panelists go down, and what for them is the one or two big takeaways from when this occurred in sort of burst into the news in how they sort of saw the issue has been the most important frame to look at it from. >> so, i think as good a place to start as any as with jennifer lawrence, recalling what

happened to her as a sex crime. a lot of people were taken back at that particular characterization because it isn't clear as a matter of current law thats true. but it really highlighted as it gives us an invitation to think about what we think a crime is, what we think a sex crime in particular isn't again about ways we can recognize it as being such. i think it is interesting to hear from a high profile victim of this behavior that her own sense of what it was was a violation for autonomy, humiliation and exposure that she would classify forerself as a sex crime. so that i think would be for me at least a perspective that would take on this is to consider why we criminalize certain types of behavior. when we start drawing the line between bad behavior and really serious behavior that we think deserves and needs a response from the criminal law. i invite us to think about that in terms of why we think the criminal law is important. not a narrow focus that we want to lock people up, but a social

expression come a condemnation, certain types of harms that are so serious that one of the only way they can express it as a community is to say they should be against the law and think about the particular nature of what happened to lawrence and other victims not so high profile i hurt in terms of the daily suffering and humiliation they have to experience that they can never get back. there's no way to undo what has been done. the harm. the harmonies cases is in most cases irreversible and ongoing. what i hope we can do to frame the conversation by looking to a big amnesty think about why we might care about the fact that sexual humiliation has become an entertainment industry and what are society and people who are concerned about having an equal internet, what we should do in response to that. >> thank you. it's very interesting how professor franks was talking

about looking for social expressions of condemnation about this behavior because that's me with some of the major difference is i saw in the response around this most recent exposure of celebrity photos compared to how this issue and how the nonconsensual disclosure of nude images has been treated over the years. five years ago or several years ago when many of us were seated at the table here first started following this issue, was difficult to get people to even engage on the question at all. i wish it's not a public conversation about how is this effective at exposing someone else's photos, being used as a way to go afer women, to arrest them come to silenc the and see the shift in the conversation about much more willingness for major media outlets and people engage in official media to be talking about the other side of the story, to talk about know,

people shouldn't follow these links. the information might be on the internet, but we don't have to go see it and she really treat what is happening to the people whose photos have been exposed as a real time that it happened to them. i think it is a good and generally that we have much more of the conversation have been in public, and society to appreciate as professor franks is saying come at the real harm happening to women when they are targeted in this way. of course the concern i see coming from the first amendment and open internet background is wanting to see if there are proposals on how to take a stronger response to this, ensuring that whatever those proposals are are not so broadly crafted that they end up pulling in a lot of protected expression as well. you know, it is very difficult to craft a law that goes after it -- that makes the crime of disclosing information in a way that only get faster a bad or

malicious disclosure of information and does analysis we've been a lot of really ital and important speech. i hope one of the things we focus on our conversation today is looking up whether all of the existing laws they really do identify the hard instead have been here, whether it's the person trying to inflict emotional response, whether it bears a federa computer fraud and abuse act to cover the hacking aspect of things. there are ways we address the harms that comes from this kind of behavior in existing law that don't entail focusing specifically on the speech aspect of it. >> my first reaction was there with a bunch of celebrities in trouble response, which was really unhelpful and because no one in this room has pictures they don't want shared with the entire internet, just with their friends on a period that is a

better way to look at it. celeb gate was one that was thrown around. i look at time at how apple is set up. if you want to keep your information safe, there's tools available. do they actually help? at the time they did not. they had a weak implementation of two-step verification. even if you had done all the things people tell you to, it didn't protect backups in the hallway of works, you know, i have one at home and i'm not clear on what is getting back up and how i control it. it's a very opaque system is so you have this case were these people didn't think there are putting pictures on the internet. it's not always clear wordage or did it go? it was in the "washington post" earlier this week. security experts at johns hopkins university didn't know

apple was saving a working copy. he thought this was on his own computer. so, legally speaking,e are to have laws against unauthorized access to computer systems. one of them, not my favorite laugher does affect the sort of thing. at the same time, i know not everyone is going to go through the factor of two-step verification, but it should be there. it should work and you should know what it is protecting and what it is now. >> pull this down? i guess they need to. >> so, i guess i have less to say about the specifics of the lawrence incident. one of the things that is in the purview of this panel is related questions, i think a broader question as professor franks

calls it the central humiliation backs on the net. the revenge porn, the outskirt photosites, those kinds of things, whichs a social, serious issue. my thoughts turn i guess with them to the first amendment, first of all, which as she said, crafting, even if we think this is harmful, crafting through addition that would survive the first amendment scrutiny with respect to much of this material would be quite difficult, probably not impossible, but difficult. and would require care to make sure he doesn't sleep in a good deal of protected material. i got involved in this. i have a student who is working on actually a project on

copyright remedies on these revenge porn sites and you can take photos done based on copyright claims. i spent half an hour, 45 minutes poking around at those sites. about a year or so ago. there is a good deal of material and stuff a sample very quickly that is clearly protected speech. there is some material that may not be. drawing that line would be allenging i.t. that is one thought i had. in the discussion about these issues and there has been a good deal discussion about what to do about what we can provide. the conversation has moved off and quickly to the question of websites, operator liability for hosting these photographs. there are existing, and the rest

of this fashion their existing program and a thin may provide relief to people who have been harmed against the individual output or said the private rotorcraft that are being posted. that section 230 of the communitions act has been construed and i think desperate tactic the website operator from being joined into the tort liability. it is against a broad range of liability, and looting days. so much of this discussion has come around to people arguing about whether it should be one repealed completely and to allow actions against website operators. it's an important law item because many issues ave this

feature were the website operators typically are helping to spread this and yet federal law against liability and i hope we can get into the various issues during this discussion. >> rate, as we can all see, there's quite a bit at play here. perhaps we can start, and it's kind of difficult in this case because we are going from a very specific instance. jennifer lawrence had private photos and what she believed was a private place that was gotten into by someone else in the photos on the internet. that is a very different situation than a lot of revenge porn cases where someone sent a private photo to someone else and after katsav, the photo was initially given with consent. that is very different than

someone hacking into a private computer that you may not extort some rain on the web. it is different if someone gets the password because you used your dog's name as password versus a sophisticated fishing now where attack. which is to say there are lot of different cases that raise these issues. generally speaking, what are some of the remedies as people who feel they are private and adjacent private data in the digital world has been exposed to the internet? what can they do now under the law to kind of relief although they may never be able to get it back? >> so i think it is really important to focus on the fact that jennifer lawrence's situation in oliver celebrities in her situation are different than the other types of contacts. i also think it is not to make too much out of the differences. if we look at this from a more