we're looking at how we build. we come back to taking local state mutual aid, the federal government, private sector command a lot of the public to respond to that scale disaster. >> i would just ask from at an appropriate time it we will be interesting to have a briefing as to how they are looking at the unknown that we now no to expect but don't no what it is and can bring calamity does as congress will be asked to do but does not have the funds to do and never expected it would happen. i think that would certainly educated me and help the subcommittee and the full community. >> mr. chairman, we have some examples we have been doing. some of the work we have done the subduction zone

off the coast of the northwest us the earthquake risk which is a very large risk command i think that we can show where we are going and tell you what we think is the path to get us there and then that will give you an opportunity to look at additional tools that you could give us. the stafford act was often times a constraint. in the past year we have responded to haiti which is traditionally the role of usaid. we were asked to support usaid command we did. we were asked to support unaccompanied children in detention facilities so we supported that. we were asked to support the ebola response. many of these things may not be in the papers but our capabilities command you

give us tools. the stafford the stafford act is limited to often times only those natural hazards with limited flexibility. i think the delegate brings up an important. what is the role of the disaster relief fund and the consequence world and if it is not in rebuilding in the emergency response cost and the ability to use the emergency declaration to mobilize and bring resources to bear is it worthwhile looking at such things, what is the role in a pandemic? it is not specifically excluded but it is not mentioned. sieber, we don't don't look to have a role in the prevention or even the

response to the technical aspect. state and locals will be dealing with consequences, many many of which we will fall somewhere patterns. we saw this in deepwater horizon. the coast guard, the lead agency had many of the tools to do with the response but much of the coordination had to be built. fema is now looking to grow our role but a better understanding of the intent of congress, as you pointed out in the homeland security act principal adviser to the pres. and congress but also capabilities we built for a lot of disasters not limiting the ability to other lead federal agencies to support them for governors when they fall outside traditional known disasters. >> the chair would recognize mr. graves for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we followed up on the congressman's line of questioning for one one of which is the national flood insurance program we lost the 1900 square miles.

what that does is make the governments that much closer to our coastal communities thereby increasing vulnerabilities. the changes that were enacted the actuarial rates increased 20, 30, 40 times what they were previously. this increase in vulnerability, whether real or not is not the fault of these people. it is largely based on studies the result of federal action tried to the tributary project dating back to 1928. when you out on top of that some of the restrictions that were put in place an ad on top of the some of the challenges that i noted earlier with regard to the corps of engineers projects that were noted to have a positive cost to

benefit ratio you stuck in project development processes for decades literally we are missing opportunities to save taxpayer dollars by being proactive rather than reactive, which is always more expensive as the two studies we noted before show there are opportunities or to make communities more resilient and to save taxpayer dollars, and i understand that not all of those are within the purview of your agency, but i want to urge -- and begin going back to the comments -- better communication, their are opportunities year projects year where these communities can be made more resilient to where hurricanes and other disasters. i wanted to perhaps correct the record on the comment you made or provide a little bit more context and the national flood insurance program. ..

he had of money to do, have to have money to do the response site. somewhere along the line that's why appreciate your blue ribbon panel to step back and look at this, but having a third party take politics out of it and to come up with some good solid

recommendations that allows us to really get a handle on this. if we don't do anything, if we do nothing i see it continue to rise and rise maybe beyond the capacity to deal with the response side. >> mr. paulison, given your background what are your thoughts on ways the federal government could help reduce costs and losses related to disasters? >> i think it's a partnership it is not just a partnership between the federal government and the states. it's a state and local local and individuals and it's the private sector working together how are we going to protect our businesses, outreach going to protect our homes, how are we going to protect our communities from disasters we know we're going to have. we haven't done that. we've had an extremely difficult time and i'm sure mr. cohen will tell you this, convincing the

public, prepare -- prepare themselves for a catastrophic event. we saw hurricane wilma, not a catastrophic hurricane, it would across the top of my house and yet we had tens of thousands of people the day not the day, the hour of the storms die down in line for food and water because they hadn't prepared themselves. that cost the federal government millions and millions of dollars to do that. so that only pre-disaster mitigation is the plan the training, it's educating the public of what we expect from them and getting the private sector to protect their businesses also. we lose about 40% of our small businesses and every catastrophic event. they just don't have the wherewithal to come back. that's a huge hit on the economy. we saw in hurricane andrew going to homestead come it took 20 years for that community to recover because the small businesses failed.

there were no jobs, and people bailed. so it is a partnership and it is something we have to work together. we've got a great fema administered to recognize that and we just have to give them the resources to make it happen. >> briefly, if any of you, start with mr. mccarthy aware of the examples were states it is federal programs to invest in a way that is already shown to have avoided additional damage and loss? >> yes, mr. chairman. there's a lot of wonderful examples, a lot of best practices we can see across the country from north carolina to st. charles county, missouri. a lot of examples where there's flooding every year except on the people there anymore and there aren't businesses there anymore. we are saving money each time. the dog that doesn't bark doesn't get headlines but a lot of that has worked. and those are just a few

examples. >> mr. koon? >> mr. chairman, we've already discussed some of the hud resiliency program. in addition to that i think some of programs offered by the small business administration degree minutes work across the country and our great resource to the state of florida. also our cooperation with the national programs again help us reach a good job of meeting the needs of our citizens using federal and other dollars as well. >> you know, fema's hazard mitigation grant program has been hugely successful within the state of california. it allows agencies indicated you to fund defensible space the creation of defensible space that allows us to going to protect those homes. when we are not in front of those homes allows the buyer to pass those homes with little damage. they also allow communities to

invest in noncombustible building materials. what we have experienced, and not just in california, you see it all over the western u.s. is that, whether it be new construction and building codes dictating certain types of materials, that's all well and good for the new construction or those communities that may be suffer through the fire and rebuild. it is existing nonconforming structures and the owners that we really have the challenges with in urging them to get involved in some of these grant opportunities and allow us to protect them in a better way. but certainly fema's hazardous materials or hazard mitigation grant program has been a huge success. >> the chair now recognizes ranking member carson. >> just one last question, chairman, for chief fennessy. sir, what role can the assistance of firefighters grant

program play in helping communities prepare for the threat of wildfires? that was my only question. >> that program has been hugely beneficial not only for large fire departments but certainly the small and volunteer fire departments. not only by way of creating grant opportunities for fire equipment, but also training. the assistance of firefighters grant, the fire act grant has benefited not only our agencies on our agencies all over this country and providing a wealth of equipment that we would not be able to afford on our own. asafa grant in which is a grant but also a sense of firefighters has provide staffing much-needed staffing for large and small departments. that program has been hugely beneficial, and just in california alone there's a number of training programs that would not have been possible had that grant funding not been available. so we appreciate the opportunity for those grants.

>> thank you, chairman. i yield back. >> before closing one final question to all witnesses. what do you think of our proposal to conduct a comprehensive review of disaster assistance and perhaps create a task force or a blue ribbon commission to lead to study and develop solutions? with this effort be helpful to reducing future disaster costs and better protect our communities? >> i will comment because of already come at a couple of times by want to reemphasize our think important that would be. we don't understand what all the costs are. i do think having a third party review like that is definitely going to help get some good solid answers without the politics in it. again, i applaud you for taking that on. >> i will just mention that as you mentioned in your opening statement, it is been at least 20 years since any of this kind of work has been done and we would be happy to support you on this.

>> yes, we do and we are eager to participate. >> certainly the international association of fire chiefs stands ready to participate. >> i welcome your input as we move forward on this initiative and i want to thank you all for your testimony. your comments have been very helpful to today's discussion. i've also received written statements for the record, from the interlocking concrete paving association and the national concrete masonry association. i thank of these organizations for their input on these important topics and i ask unanimous consent that these two statements included in the record. without objection, so ordered. if there are no further questions, i would ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided answers to any question that may be submitted to them in writing, and unanimous consent the record remain open for 15 days for any additional comments and information cement by members or

witnesses, by members or witnesses to include in the record of today's hearing. without objection i would like to again thank our witnesses for their testimony today. this meeting is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] >> today on c-span2 former secretaries of state testifying about national security at a hearing of the senate armed services committee. the new york governor andrew cuomo delivered his annual state of the state address. live coverage from the floor of the u.s. senate. >> c-span2 providing live coverage of the senate floor proceedings and key public policy events, and every weekend

of tv. out for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2 created by the cable tv industry that brought you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd like us on facebook and follow was on twitter. >> former secretaries of state henry kissinger, madeleine albright and george shultz testified about national security strategy at the senate armed services committee hearing. they discussed iran's nuclear program, the russia-ukraine conflict and the islamic state. the beginning of hearing is interrupted by protesters calling henry kissinger a quote war criminal. john mccain chairs this two-hour hearing. >> [inaudible conversations]

>> well, good morning all. [shouting] >> arrest henry kissinger for war crimes. arrest henry kissinger for war crimes. arrest henry kissinger for war crimes. arrest henry kissinger for war crimes. arrest henry kissinger for war

crimes. arrest henry kissinger for war crimes. >> could i -- arrest henry kissinger for crimes. >> did we restore order here? >> arrest henry kissinger for war crimes. >> arrest henry kissinger for war crimes. arrest henry kissinger for war crimes. arrest henry kissinger for war crimes. arrest henry kissinger for war crimes. arrest henry kissinger for war crimes. arrest henry kissinger for war crimes. >> we don't want to hear you anymore. spin in the name of the people of vietnam. in the name of the people of vietnam. >> do you know what?

>> in the name of the people of cambodia. >> i'd like to say to my colleagues and to our distinguished witnesses this morning that i have i've been a member of this committee for many years and i've never seen anything as disgraceful and outrageous and despicable as the last demonstration that just took place about -- [shouting] >> you are going to have to shut up or i will have you arrested. if we can't get the capitol hill police in your immediately and -- in here immediately. [inaudible] >> it out of here you lowlifes. -- get out of here you lowlifes. [applause]

>> so, henry i hope you will dr. kissinger, i hope i'm half of all of the members of this committee on both sides of the aisle, in fact from all of my colleagues i would like to apologize for allowing such disgraceful behavior towards a man who served his country with the greatest distinction. i apologize profusely. the senate armed service committee meets today to receive testimony on global challenges and u.s. national security strategy. this is the third hearing in a series designed to examine the strategic context in which we find ourselves, one characterized by multiplying and accumulation threats to our national security, now that should inform the work of this committee and the congress. we that previously testimony rom general brent scowcroft, dr. brzezinski general mattis and

others, and we have heard consistent things. our foreign policy is reactive. we need to repeal sequestration. we should not withdraw from afghanistan on arbitrary calendar-based timeline, and we need a strategy that matches military means to the president's stated goal of degrading and destroying crisis. we will export these topics and many more with today's outstanding panel of witnesses. i'm honored to welcome three former separatist a state among our nation's most admired diplomats and public servants. dr. henry kissinger, dr. george shultz and dr. madeleine albright. our nation owes each of these statesmen a debt of gratitude for the years of service advancing our national interest. secretary schultz has held nearly every senior position of importance in our federal government or in his own lustrous career. dr. albright was an instrumental leader during key points in our

nation's history influencing policies in the balkans and the middle east. and, finally, i would be remiss if i did not acknowledge the personal debt of gratitude to go to dr. kissinger. when henry came to hanoi to conclude the agreement that would end america's war in vietnam, the vietnamese told them they would send me home with him. he refused the offer quote commander mccain will return in the same order as the others, he told them. he knew my early release would be seen as favoritism to my father and a violation of our code of conduct. by rejecting this last attempt to suborn dereliction of duty henry saved one of my important possessions, my honor. and for that henry, i am eternally grateful. thank you again to all of our witnesses for being here today and i look forward to your testimony. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman to let me join you in welcoming secretary kissinger, sector scholz and secretary

albright. you have provided extraordinary leadership to this nation and so may different capacities and we are deeply appreciative of you joining us this morning. it is an opportunity to you from individuals who have witnessed and shape history over the course of many, many years. and thank you again for joining us. i also want to commend senator mccain for the series of hearings that have allowed us to look very carefully at the strategy of the united states in the of the complex problems that face us today. you all have done so much, again, let me reiterate our appreciation and our thanks. each of you have demonstrated an in depth understanding of the historical, economic, religious ethnic and political facts affecting foreign policy and international security. in each of you emphasize the need to use all instruments of national power, not just military power but also diplomacy and economic power to

address the challenges facing the united states. the breadth and complexity challenges to the international order in the united states today seen as complex and vexing as any we've faced previously. we would be interested in your perspective on these challenges and the principles that should guide our security strategy. on iran in a recent hearing that senator mccain mentioned both of them urged congress to hold off on additional sanctions in order to multilateral negotiation on iran's nuclear program, sufficient time to reach the conclusion that indeed the senate banking committee is considering that issue in a few moments and i'll have to participate in that market. but we would certainly be interested in your perspective in this critical issue. regarding the middle east, on the military aspects of this security strategy general mattis emphasized the need to have a clear understanding of what our political objectives are in the

region. he also made clear any attempt to impose a purely military solution to this complex would come at a very high cost. general scowcroft, dr. brzezinski talked about the importance of the region but also warned against the united states in their words owning it. and we have to be very, very careful going forward. all of these issues and many, many more from russians either in the crimea to the effect of cyber on national security policy, i think we would benefit immensely from your advice and for the wisdom. thank you very, very much, and begin thank you, senator mccain. >> thank you. we will begin with dr. albright. welcome and thank you for being here today. >> delighted to be here, chairman mccain, senator reed and members of the committee. thank you very much for inviting me to participate in this important series of hearings. and i am very, very pleased to be alongside with my distinguished colleagues and

very difference, secretaries kissinger and scholz. i want to commend this committee for initiating this timely discussion of u.s. national security strategy because these hearings embodied his chambers best traditions of bipartisanship and foreign policy. i think they can be tremendously helpful in framing the issues facing our country. as someone who began her career in public service working as chief legislative assistant to the great senator from maine ed muskie, i've long believed that congress has a critical role to play in our national security. so when i became second estate, i valued my regular appearances before the senate foreign relations committee, and headed by senator jesse helms. he and i did disagree many things that we respected each other and build an effective partnership we both believed because america had a unique role to play in the world. and i believe still shapes my worldview, and informs the perspective that a bring to our discussion today.

it doesn't take a seasoned observer of international relations to point out that we are living through a time of monumental change across the world. we are reckoned with new forces that are pushing humanity down the path of progress, while also unleashing new contradictions on the world scene. one of these forces is globalization which has made the world more interconnected than ever before, but also added new layers of complexity to the challenges of statecraft. with globalization it is impossible for any single nation to insulate itself from the world's problems, or to act as the lone global problems over. another force is technology which has unleashed unprecedented innovation and benefited people the world over, while also amplifying their frustrations and empowering networks of criminals and terrorists. globalization and technology are reshaping and disrupting the international system, which are struggling to keep pace with

change. nowhere is this more apparent than in the middle east where century-old state boundaries are unraveling a rising wave of violence and sectarianism is producing the world's largest refugee crisis and 70 years and a dangerous competition is playing out between iran and saudi arabia for regional primacy. another key test allies in europe where russia's ongoing aggression against ukraine has fundamentally changed security calculations on the continent, and marked the first time since world war ii the european borders have been altered by force. events of recent days have shown that what many have assumed would become a frozen conflict is still in fact red hot. meanwhile, in asia the region's growth and the rise of new powers are treating new opportunities for the united states and days of such as trade, but these developers are also testing security arrangements that have ensured peace and stability since the end order to. none of these challenges owes an

existential threat to the united states, but the intensity and complexity of them can seem daunting particularly after we've been through more than 13 years of protracted war and threats such as climate change, nuclear proliferation, disease and food and water shortages also looming on the horizon. still they can't be ignored. the american people may be tired but we must avoid another danger lurking in this new era the temptation to turn inward. because for all the turmoil this young century has brought america remains by far the world's mightiest economic and military power with the resurgent economy and an energy revolution getting his newfound confidence in our future. we are the only nation with not just the capacity and will to lead, but also the ideals to do so in a direction that most of the world would prefer to go towards liberty justice, peace and economic opportunity for

all. as the president said last week the question is not whether america should lead, but how it should lead. that in many ways is the focus of today's hearing so let me just suggest a few basic principles that might help guide this discussion. first, we are the world's indispensable nation but nothing about the word indispensable requires us to act alone. alliances and partnerships matter, enhancing our power and the legitimacy of our actions. our national security strategy must always encompass the security of others and where possible we should work through coalitions of friends and allies. second, given the fluid nature of today's threats we must make wise use of every foreign policy option, from quiet diplomacy and military force, to protect america's national interest. third, the foundation of american leadership must remain what it has been for generations, our belief in the

fundamental dignity and importance of every human being. we should not be shy about promoting these values, and that's why i'm proud to be the chairman of the national democratic institute and i know that you mr. chairman are very proud of your leadership of the international republican institute and the things we do together. working with allies and partners, balancing her diplomatic economic and military tools of national power, staying true to our ideals, these will all be critical in navigating today's challenges. this means in the middle east we must continue working with european and regional allies to apply direct military pressure against the islamic state, while making clear that these violent extremists are guilty not of islamic terrorism but of crimes that are profoundly un-islamic. we must aid to millions of innocent refugees that fled both the care of isis and the depravity of the assad regime.

another key challenge in the region remains iran. the president has rightly made it the policy of the united states to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. he has taken no options off the table to achieve that goal, and the administration is exploring a diplomatic resolution. if these negotiations failed, or if iran does not honor its commitments, then the united states should, and i believe will, impose additional costs on tehran with strong support internationally. but i believe it would be a mistake to do so before the negotiations run their course. in europe we must reinforce our nato allies and stand united and firm against putin's aggression, even as we continue to engage russia as a global power on issues of shared interest. but until russia honors its commitment to withdraw its forces from ukraine, there can be no sanctions relief. and if russia continues its pattern of destabilizing actions, it must face even more

severe consequences. on economic reforms, the administration has made strong pledges with ukraine to work with our allies. however, just a few more commitments in the area on banking and energy but we do have to help them in terms of military assistance so that they can defend themselves. we should that make the road forward harder by suggesting that we see ukraine's future is subject to russia's veto. i have many of the comments i would like to reserve the rest to put in the record, and i thank you very much for your kindness and asking all of us to come and speak. >> secretary shultz. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it is a privilege -- >> you have to push the button. >> i appreciate the privilege of being here. you can see i am out of practice. i haven't been here for 25 years. i used to appear a lot and we

had the idea when i was in office, if you want me with you on the landing, including in the takeoff. and so we get lots of consultations, and i found i always learned roman. so i appreciate the chance to appear. what i thought it would do is start by setting up basic ideas that we used and president reagan used and thinking out his foreign policy and defense policy. and then try to apply those ideas to four areas that are important right now. so first of all, the idea of execution your you have to arrange yourself and the way to go about things so that you execute the ideas that you have in mind make them effective.

i remember when i returned to california after serving you know i'd service secretary of labor and director of the budget, secretary of treasury. i got a phone call inviting me to sacramento. he was governor then, and i got a two and a half hour grilling on how the federal government worked. how to get something to happen, how does the presence of this policy, how does he get people to follow the policy, how does the budget to put together, what does the president do what to the cabinet officers do, and so on. and i came away feeling this guy wants to be president but he wants to do the job make things work. and then i remembered not long after he took office, you may recall the air controllers went on strike. the air traffic controllers. and people kept running into the oval office saying mr. president mr. president this is very complicated. he said, it's not complicated. it's simple.

they took an oath of office and they violated it. they are out. and all over the world people said is he crazy, firing the air traffic controllers? but he had surrounded himself come and get over in the transportation department a man named drew lewis who would been the chief executive of a large transportation company, and drew knew how to keep the planes flying, which happen. so all over the world the message with a the guy plays for keeps, you better pay attention. but it was execution. the second thing in his playbook was always be realistic, don't kid yourself, no rose-colored glasses, described the situation as it is. that doesn't mean you're afraid to recognize an opening when you see it but don't kid yourself. very important principle. then next, be strong. military of course, and i don't

know sequestration seems to me like legislative and sanity. you can't run anything on a percentage basis. you got to be able to pick and choose, so you better get rid of that. but at any rate, we need a strong military, but we need a strong economy something vibrant, something going to draw on. and we need to have that kind of self-confidence that madeleine talk about, we have the winning hand, the right ideas, all that adds to your strength. then the next thing of course, is to think through your agenda. so when you get to negotiating your negotiate from your own agenda, not the other guys agenda. don't spend any time thinking about what he might accept or what she might accept. stick to your agenda. figure it out what it is and that's what you're after. i remember when president reagan proposed the so-called zero option, people said you are

crazy. the soviets have 1500 missiles deployed, we have none. you're out of your mind. well, we went through a lot of pain and agony but we wound up with 00. so our agenda one. we stuck to it. then i think it's very important to be very careful with your words, mean what you say. say what you mean. i remember, mr. chairman, at the start of world war ii i was in marine corps boot camp. sergeant has been revived. he says take good care of this rival. this is your best friend to our member fish and remove one thing. ever points his rifle at anybody unless you're willing to pull the trigger am sure you would do the same experience in boot camp. so no empty threats. and you can translate that into when you say you're going to do something, do it. if you have that pattern of behavior, people trust you, they

can deal with you. if you don't do what you say you're going to do they don't trust you. i think this is been a very important principle. and then once you have all these things in place, negotiate engage with people. don't be afraid to engage with your adversaries, but do it on your agenda and from your strengths to so that's the outline. now, let me turn first to something that i don't know whether it's really on your agenda or not but i think it should be. that is our neighborhood. i always felt and president reagan felt that our policies start in her neighborhood. this is where we live and canada and mexico. it's worth pointing out that since nafta was signed 20 years ago, trade between of these three countries has blossomed and it is our biggest trading partner, mexico is third. we are their biggest trading partner. listen to this.

our imports from canada are 25% u.s. content. our imports from mexico are 40% u.s. content. so there's an integrated process going on here. furthermore, in terms of people there are a million canadians living in california. fertility in mexico now is down to a little below replacement level. when we had a crisis not long ago with all these kids showing up on our border, none of them were mexicans. it only underlines the point that the border that we need to be worrying about is mexico's southern border, and we need to be worrying about how can we help them and why is it conditions are so bad in el salvador, honduras and guatemala that parents send their children

north to see if they can't get something better? we've got to pay attention down there. that's all part of this problem of illegal immigration. isn't just ranting about our border. it's much more worse than that. then i want to turn to iran. what's the reality? let's start with reality. the first point to remember is iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism. it started right away when they took people in our embassy hostage for close to a year. one of the first acts also was to try to blow the grand mecca. they act directly, the act indirectly through hezbollah. i think it's probably a fair statement to say that if it weren't for hezbollah, assad would not be in syria right now but hezbollah is an iranian

entity, and we shouldn't kid ourselves about the and they perpetrate terror. so that's point number one about what they are like. point number two they are direct, developing missile -- nuclear missiles. they are pretty advanced in that as far as i can figure out. that's a menacing military item. number three internally there's a lot to be desired in the way they run themselves, lots of political executions in iran and that continues. and forth, they're trying to develop nuclear weapons. there is no sensible explanation where the extent the money the talent they devoted to their nuclear thing, other than they want a nuclear weapon. can't be explained any other way.

so we are negotiating with them. at least as far as i can see they haven't got a table set yet. there's nothing going on about ballistic missiles, nothing going on about terrorism, let alone their internal affairs. it's just about the nuclear business it and we had innumerable u.n. resolutions in the security council calling on iran to dismantle its nuclear capabilities, and now we seem to have granted that. as they say we have granted the right to enrich. already pickpocketed that edwards is talking about how much -- they have pocketed that. also the case if you said yourself, what is their agenda, their agenda is to get rid of the sanctions. and they are doing pretty well. the sanctions are eroding. the more you kick the can down the road, the more the sanctions

eroded. and they are not so easy to put back. i hear people talk about snapback. there's very little snapback. if you've ever tried to get sanctions imposed on somebody, you know how hard it is. you're trying to persuade people who are making a perfectly good living out of trade with somebody to stop doing it and it isn't easy. so i'm very uneasy about the way our negotiations with iran are going on. i think it's not a bad thing if they reminded that sanctions can be put on and will be tough. then let me just say a word madeline has covered already well, about russia. i think in addition to the obvious things about it russia is showing a lack of concern about borders.

it is in a sense an attack on the state system. this is an attack on agreement to remember when ukraine give up nuclear weapons, there was an agreement with us with the russians and with the british that they would respect the borders of ukraine. you don't even hear about that agreement anymore. doesn't mean a thing. and all their neighbors are nervous. why? because they are showing a disrespect for borders. i want to come back to this issue, because and let me just turn to the question of terrorism, and isis. because it's related in some in an odd way to what russia is doing. i think the isis default is not simply about terrorism. it's about a different view about how the world should work. they are against the state

system. they say, we don't believe in country. in that sense there's an odd kind of relationship with what russia is doing and what they are doing. so what do we do about it? well, first of all i think we do have to understand the scope of it. it's the scope that bothers. we had, hoover institution at stanford where i work, the other day, a guy who was ahead military person in pakistan he was more worried about terrorism than he was about india and he was worried about isis establishing itself in pakistan. it wasn't just the middle east. this idea of no countries is something that is their ideology they are trying to pursue it. so what do we do? well, i think we obviously need to recognize that this has been a round a long time, and i

brought, perhaps i can put in the record, mr. chairman, -- >> without objection. >> speech i gave in 1984 estimate the point that terrorism has been around a while. and in his speech i will read a couple things from it. the terrorist proper from anarchy caused from the violence. they succeed when governments change their policies out of intimidation, but the terrorist can even be satisfied if the government responds to terror by clamping down on individual rights and freedoms. governments that overreact and even in self-defense but only undermine their own legitimacy. so i'm saying which figure out how to react but not give away the store in the process. the magnitude of the threat posed by terrorism is so great that we cannot afford to confront it with halfhearted and poorly organized measures.

terrorism is a contagious disease that will inevitably spread if it goes untreated. >> we can't allow ourselves to become the hamlet of nations warring endlessly over whether and how to respond. but we have to be ready to respond. what should we do? well, a pretty good set of proposals by your friend, mr. chairman, senator joseph lieberman, i don't know whether you saw the piece he had in "the wall street journal" recently. a very good piece. >> we will included in the record. >> he sets out things that we should do, which i agree if you could put this in the record i think that would be helpful. >> without objection. >> but in addition to military things that we should be doing i think we also have to ask ourselves, how do we encourage members of the islamic faith to

disavow these efforts. the president of egypt made what reportedly a very important speech that we need to build on but i would like to call your attention to something that has come out of san francisco. of course, i'm a little oriented that way. i know you people on the east coast think we're a bunch of nut balls, but we have a good time. but there is a man in san francisco named bill. is a retired episcopal bishop of california. and he said something called the united religion of initiative. is that is to get people, he found it was hard to get the people running these religions but if you get the people together, getting them to talk together about subjects of interest to them they basically forget about the religion and they try to get somewhere with

these subjects. so by this time he has what he calls cooperation circle in 85 countries, millions of people involved. and he has a big list of religions involve, the most important in numbers are christians and islam and that's followed by hinduism and jewish but a whole bunch of others. and the kinds of things they talk about are like economic development, education, health care nuclear disarmament refugee and displacement issues, and so on. but i think things like this are to be encouraged because they get people from different religions and say, there are things you can get together on and work on together and that tends to break things down.

and he is given it a little handout on that and i would like to put that in the record also. >> without objection. >> thank you for the opportunity to present some views. >> thank you very much, mr. secretary. secretary kissinger. >> mr. chairman, thank you for this invitation and two appeared together with my friends for 50 years, george schultz of whom i have cared so much, and with madeline with whom i've shared common concerns for many decades. and who put me in my place when she was appointed as secretary of state, and i introduced her at a dinner in new york, and i said, welcome to the fraternity.

and she said, the first thing i had to learn, that it is no longer a fraternity. now it's a sorority. mr. chairman i've taken liberty, i agree with policy recommendations that my colleagues have put forward to try to put forward conceptual statement of the overall situation, and i will be happy in the question period to go into specific policy issues. the united states finds itself in a paradoxical situation. by any standard of national capacity, we are in a favorable position to achieve our traditional objectives and to shape international relations.

yet as we look around the world we encounter a people -- of people, conflict and chaos. [shouting] >> vietnam 1969-1973 kissinger working for richard nixon oversaw the slaughter in vietnam, cambodia and laos which led to the deaths of millions -- millions of people. many thousands more died from agent orange and from unexploded bombs. henry kissinger is one of the principal architects of the coup in chile on september 11, 1973. they overthrew the democratic elected government of salvador -- >> thank you. [applause]

>> thank you very much. the united states has not faced a more diverse and complex array of crises since the end of the second world war. one reason is that the nature of strategy has shifted from an emphasis on object of power to include also the psychological contests and asymmetric war. the second reason is the existing international order is being redefined.

first, the concept of order within every region of the world is being challenged. second the relationship between different regions of the world is being redefined. third, for the first time in history, every region now interact in real time and affects each other simultaneously. the problem of peace was historically posed by the accumulation of power. the emergence of a potentially dominant country threatening the security of its neighbors. in our period, peace is often threatened by the disintegration of power the collapse of authority into non-governed spaces spreading violence beyond the borders and their region. this has led to the broadening

of the challenge of terrorism, from a threat organized essentially from beyond borders to a threat with domestic networks and origins. in many countries of the world. the current international order based on respect for sovereignty, rejection of territorial conquest, open trade, and encouragement of human rights is primarily a creation of the west. it originated as a mechanism to and europe's religious wars over three centuries ago. it spread as european states advanced technologically and territorially. and it evolved in the decades since world war ii, as the united states became its

guarantor and it's indispensable -- [inaudible] in key regions of the world that order is in the process of change. in europe, after two cataclysmic wars, the leading states set out to pool their sovereignty, and crises cast the question of europe's identity and world role into sharper relief. and along with it the definition of the transatlantic partnership, which in all the post-world war ii period has been the keystone of american foreign policy. europe is suspended between a past it is determined to

overcome and a future still in the process of redefinition. it has a willingness to contribute to so-called soft power and a reluctance to play a role in the other aspects of security. the atlantic partnership faces the challenge of adapting from an essentially regional grouping to an alliance based on congruent global views. russia, meanwhile, is challenging the strategic orientation of states once constrained in its satellite orbit. the west has an interest in indicating the independence and vitality of these states that

ended their satellite status. russia is now mounting an offensive on the border on which, paradoxically it is least inherently threatened. on many issues, for especially islamist extremist, american and russian interests should prove compatible. so we face a dual challenge. to overcome the immediate threats that are posed along the borders, a special of ukraine but to do so in a manner that leaves open a context for russia's long-term role in

international relations. where it is needed to play a central role. in asia, many economies and societies are flourishing. at the same time there exists local conflicts which are not for which there is no formal arrangement to constrain their rivalries. this introduces a measure of volatility to seemingly local disputes. a special aspect of any asian system will be the relationship between the united states and china. it is often described as one between a rising power and an established power.

to success of american and chinese presidents have announced their joint pain to deal with this matter on the basis of cooperation. yet it is also true that significant spokesman have stressed the adversarial aspect in both countries. now, and he is entering this equation. with its vast economic potential, a vibrant democracy and cultural links to asia the middle east, and the west, india plays a growing role that the united states will naturally welcome. the emphasis should be on social and political alignments, not

strategic groupings. in the middle east multiple of people's -- upheavals are unfolding simultaneously. there's a struggle for power within states, a contest between states, a conflict between ethnic and sector in groups and an assault on the international system. and these various conflicts often merge, and they have produced isis which challenges all established institutions, and which in the name of the caliphate is establishing a

territorial space explicitly designed to undermine all the existing patterns of legitimacy. so continuing a territory under terrorist control its aim its overthrow of all these institutions. the conflict with the isis must be viewed within the context and not within the context of individual episodes and the ability to overcome that. iran has exploited this turmoil

to pursue positions of power within other countries beyond the control of national authorities. and sometimes constituting a state within a state. for example, in lebanon and iraq and elsewhere. and all this while developing a nuclear program of potentially global consequences. nuclear talks with iran, which i welcome, began as an international effort by three european countries, buttressed by six u.n. resolutions, and the united states joined them only

in 2006 where about purpose has been of all these countries together with the six resolutions of the security council to deny iran the capability to develop a military nuclear option. these negotiations have now become essentially bilateral negotiation over the scope of that capability not an existence, through an agreement that sets a hypothetical limit of one year on an assumed breakout period the impact of exchange will be to transform the negotiations from preventing

proliferation to managing it. and from the avoidance of proliferation to its limitation. these need to be considered in assessing whatever agreement emerges. in all of these regions, the old order is in flux while its replacement is uncertain. the role of the united states is indispensable in a time of global upheaval, the consequence of american disengagement isn't magnified turmoil.

it requires larger intervention later. the united states, working together with mexico and canada in economic partnership and with its other allies, can help shape the emerging world in both the atlantic and pacific regions. ..