exploit the researchers, they are responsible for their hardware. they bear the loss from the research hardware that was lost and that's -- >> is there going to be any future effort by nasa in as much as we are hiring private contractors to require those private contractors to reimburse nasa for equipment materials lost because the private contractors were unsuccessful and launching their vehicles? ..

when we think about the international space station come it really truly is an engineering marvel. something that, over time, as the witnesses have noted in 15 years of uninterrupted humans living in space, remarkable. when we think about this and when we think about where we want to go, we have to continue to think a big as the nation. where do not be afraid thinking at addressing the issues, particularly as we dream about human space travel to mars. we don't know how we are going to get there, but that should not stop us a nation that stop us, and i should not stop us from making investment at a loss to continue to drink it. that is what we have done

throughout our existence as human beings. we have not been afraid to explore, not been afraid to ask those questions, and certainly this body has the responsibility continue to push for the next generation of discovery. that said as with increasingly move to this coordinated role between what the public interest in partnership with commercialization of space, the last few months have been a bit concerning. we've been fortunate that the accidents did not have human beings on there, and only cargo. but as a look at this partnership of commercialization and human space travel and taking human beings to the space station and beyond, it is a bit worrisome. my question, maybe let me directed to mr. martin. detached on come in light of these recent accidents -- you touched on these accidents

could elaborate and maybe expand on nasa's role in making sure there's a transparent investigation. there is some concern if it just the commercial entities are investigating without nasa's role. >> built i think it go into about greater detail. under the contracts, this is a commercial space flight, the faa gets the license and under the contract, the contract elites the accident investigation review. unlike a past challenge acted or something like that were nasa itself would convene an independent accident investigations bordered my sense is that nasa is a member, sort of advisory number of orbitals and soon-to-be spacex accident review board but they are not leaving that activity. perhaps bill could go deeper into the. >> is the nasa team is participating drug on with the faa team and ads-b on the spacex accident board they

developed a paltry just as nasa's done and the way they disposition each false item is all three entities nasa at the a and ads-b and spacex all have to agree that this item is closed and not contributing to this accident. it's by consensus, the engineering teams essentially led by spacex not fully represented by the government and the government can say whether we accept or do not accept the explanation for what the root cause was. it's a very effective way for us to get inside. we get your own internet research on the site and country directly to the conclusions and make sure that we're representing the cabinet. 's we have the best on the faa the best from nasa participating along with the contractor led activity. >> do you feel confident that there's a transparency in there, and that we as a body in congress we will be able to see that transparency and get the full details? >> so far it's been extreme interest there. it was the same with the oracle

investigation. we had that same transparency within. it's been effective both in we can show them have direct evidence of our that transparency is about it is being implemented. >> great. and with that i will yield back. >> thank you. now i would like to recognize the gentleman from florida, mr. posey. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. gerstenmaier, we know that planning for the iss began 20 years before it was actualized and now we're less than 10 years out from the admission nation's proposed extension to 2024. does nasa have plans for some sort of station and low birth orbit beyond 2024? perhaps some sort of public-private partnership perhaps with the current international parts for advice as replacement. or does nasa intend to leave any station entirely to commercial companies?

>> i think at this point we are looking to see if we can leave low-earth orbit to commercial companies to what we're doing is we're a life into their investigations on station to see that they can get a market return at it make sense to do that. inwardly the agency's role is into push for the into space to go into the region around the room. we call them improving graphic will move our research and our endeavors into the for the region that helps the agency to prepare to take bigger missions ultimately towards mars. at this point we're envisioning low-earth orbit to essentially be more of a private sector activity and will use the remaining lifetime of station to let the private sector understand the benefits of microgravity research to their terrestrial investigations and see if it helps them from a fundamental research standpoint. >> that's great to hear. our government is investing in capsules can all run driving cst 100. most capsules are optimized the crew and cargo back and forth to the iss.

what role will capsules play once the initial space station reaches the end of its life? >> a-game, for the commercial crew program, and also the commercial cargo program the companies have an interest beyond just the nasa needs. they are building these capsules they will be able to operate these capsules for the own purposes. if this private station we discussed earlier is available they can use this transportation system to deliver cargo to it. they can deliver a crew to it, et cetera, outside of the government. this will allow the private sector to go get transportation services on its own from these companies that we have enabled. >> that's great. the space shuttle and x. 37 both examples of for usable spacecraft to land on a runway also a bad track records of success. has nasa completed without the use of reusable runway capable vehicles for crew or cargo in the future?

>> the simple answer is no. each i think in case of the orion vehicle is geared toward the space activities where carrying wings makes it very difficult to read into the earth atmosphere so that the space vehicles will typically be a capsule type to go but from low-earth orbit transportation when vehicles are very nice and had many advantages as we got to see through the shuttle program. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you. i would like to know recognize the gentleman from virginia, mr. buyer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. gerstenmaier, on the one hand we've had three fortunate losses that we've been producing mentioned. on the other and it seems our commercial space industry is great to grow exponentially adding great value to our economy and our civilization a peninsula, internet, space tourist of even mars are talked about there can help us put these accidents into proper perspective?

especially compared to train and airline at automobile accidents 30,000 deaths laughter by the way. nasa tragic and all the transportation accidents in history. are looking at the relatively two or three that have come up in the right perspective compared to the last 150 years? >> that's an interesting question. again i think a positive thing is that in all three of these cases there's been no loss of life so that such a basic processes and procedures are in place. so we protected the public. we protected the launch site. we did the right things that i think the important thing is to not get so fixated on the problem but how can we learn from this problem. as an emerging industry into developing new transportation system, the more we fly there will be small problems. they are acceptable in this case. as we described the impact on the devastating to station. they are to research but still recoverable are the real tragedy

will be if we don't learn from these events and we don't understand the engineering behind the failed and improve overall the industry. so i think just as the aviation industry has suffered a lot of failure throughout its history the reason for its success today and the safety we get into aircraft industry is a result of lessons learned and those lessons being applied to build a better and safer aircraft. we need to do the same thing in the space industry. we need to take this learning from these events, internalize it, not be afraid, be good how to make design changes and build a more robust transportation system. i see this as a painful but may be somewhat necessary learning process. it's excellent to work on cargo. we do not want to learn on crew. we can apply those lessons to crew. >> thank you for your positive and optimistic attitude. very much appreciated. blog you have a microphone though, the aerospace safety advisory panel, a subcommands identified might go meteoroid

and are both to be judgment to bring out the top of the list facing i suspect how does nasa address these concerns about orbital debris? >> we have shielding onboard our space station and spacecraft that can protect for some debris. we cannot protect for all debris. we've recently implemented some changes to the progress vehicle, the proper slaughter that occurred last weekend. it had new debris shields on so we are continuing to improve the debris protection capability. and then we actively trained on orbit just as we trying to restaurant or fire drills, et cetera. we train for evacuation drills of space station in case we get hit by a piece of micro-meteoroid of debris that penetrates the pressure sure that we're prepared in the event. is our highest risk and look across the risks and it. we protect with a shielding levels that we can protect for at the stage of stations like. >> thank you very much.

dr. pawelczyk you testified that during the 2000s resulted nasa's priorities that the spaceflight and fiscal times was hard hit and a lot of scientists left the field. do you have any concerns that the love of the workforce and expertise in the field today especially as we get ready to think about man's mission to mars? >> thank you very much for the question that for the question that i would see the short answer is no. you are absolutely right that those particular functions were very hard. we saw about an 80% detriment and the site portfolios and fundamental biology and in the physical sciences. one of the great things that has happened since 2011 is the nasa's reinstituted a ground-based program to get a look at the numbers of people are applying, they are in the hundreds for solicitation right now. there's an active funding that is happening in bringing research up to the station. they are starting to see that

coming back but what's even more interesting about it is that you are seeing to be some of the youngest sciences that have really schooled in the entrepreneurial spirit saying hey, this is something i'd like to take an opportunity and check out. the iss research conference this week was about three times bigger than what was just a year ago. so there's a growing spirit. we need need to continue defeated that spirit and to think great things will happen as a result. >> that's great. and thank you for your enthusiasm. i just about spit now i would like to recognize the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. bridenstine. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you to all of our panelists for coming and testified before this committee. mr. gerstenmaier, i appreciate your long and distinguished service at nasa, going back to negotiating with the russians on the new program and other things in the '90s there and that's really what i would like to start today. when you think about right now given the recent accidents that

we have gone through, we are seeing how important our reliance is on things like the russian progress cargo spacecraft and, of course, the russian soyuz crew spacecraft. given how the relationship has changed between the united states and russia, and we had even heard that the russians have talked about pulling out of the international space station. ..

the relationship is extremely strong and spied out the governmental tensions comment areas that challenge that depends a little bit as to the toughness working together with the progress clause ensuring data and working together to get ready to go fly a crew on the 23rd of this month with the russians that may have been open to help us understand our needs that the relationship is extremely strong. >> how confident are you they will continue on 2020?

i have heard eiji has a report the operation of the iss will become more difficult because of the ability to take replacement parts to the international space station. recently boeing had a report that may not have contradict that with some of those issues. can you share with us the boeing position? they were suggesting beyond 2020 things get difficult. the report suggested 2028. can you share how you share those issues? the study we did look at things like the structural integrity of the elements on board and to survive the micrometeorite penetration and came to the coal pollution 2028 is completely feasible relative to the hardware in orbit.

the other part of the question is what about the logistics resupply to replace boxes that fail in orbit computers, and that arrived in to supply the crew. they've done the logistics model nasa has laid out and is using for the procurement of resupply services that volume is sufficient to support the logistics resupply necessary based on our analysis. we think through 2028 is completely doable. >> thank you for the testimony. mr. gerstenmaier, i appreciate mr. posey's question about what comes next after the iss. whether it's 2020 2028 we could lose partners. we don't know what we might lose certain partners. we have to think about what comes next in leo. i would like to follow up comic

enough to provide a report to congress on his plans for a roadmap for a timeline for certifying and testing post-iss -- a post-iss station in leo? i understand his question was about commercial and that is of interest as well. it has to be tested and certified. can you provide a timeline to congress for that? >> the way we need to think about this is the next private station i don't believe will be a massive worth because the space station today with the international space station. it could be a smallest discussion by the space x corp. abusing the crew transportation modules where they have individual investigations. we've talked to orbital about using cargo vehicles of the temporary space station. when we think about the private sector the private sector caveman over we don't have the massive investment. they can learn what benefits

them if it's in materials processing they can build a unique capability to do that. the air has the capability and can do that on their own and i think nasa's role is to move to present further and go into the region around the room so there may be a capability supply potentially for cargo at nasa's next focuses on capability potentially in the vicinity of the moon. >> roger that. i yield that. >> thank you. i would like to recognize the gentleman from colorado mr. perlmutter. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. administrator, good to see you. some days you are here after we have had successes and disappointments, but appreciate the fact we just keep moving forward. it is not easy.

this is a risky business that you all are in and we recognize that we don't want to have many disappointments. we want to have mostly successes. i became more comfortable in understanding the kind of oversight that goes with the contract are led investigation process that in fact you are very involved in the has to be some kind of signoff as part of all of this because often times we have everybody looking over everybody else's shoulder. this is a sensible way to approach it and i appreciate that. my questions are generally for you.your pawelczyk and for you ms. oakley on what our research is doing on the space station that will help us as we move forward to sending our astronauts to mars and for you so we have the researcher and

the future acc will sitting next to the one who has to figure out how to pay for it in what is the return. i would like to have you answer generally how you see the space station in the insane horrible going to mars and i would like to ask you ms. oakley what do you see in terms of the costs and benefits from an accountant's point of view. i will just turn it over to youtube. >> to make sure that ms. oakley has time i will be brief. there are three issues. there are the biological changes we see in this continuous reduced gravity environment. bone and muscle are some of the largest. it is this energetic radiation environment that we understand to a large extent from the standpoint when we start to look at interactions are things like effects in the brain and accelerated --

>> is this part of why you have one kelley on the space station and one on the ground? >> it is an absolutely unique experiment because they are identical. the changes in space could be a chance to talk about the variation exclusively because of the space environment. of course there are the behavioral issues. we are moving in the futuristic world. right now the iss works in concert with the ground when we begin to go into interplanetary operations. those crew members were quite autonomously from the ground. it's just a matter of distance. how people function independent will be very different than how we operate on the iss today. >> the bottom line is nasa does need a robust science program on international space station to achieve the longer-term exploration goals. however, nasa has to be able to

pay for it in the congress has to be able to pay for it. that relies on a robust commercial participation in low earth orbit to do some of the things nasa needs to divert funding for the longer-term exploration goals. like mr. gerstenmaier was referring to, being able to establish the markets should do the research required to support the long-duration human exploration will be essential in getting them to pay for it will be essential because going to mars is expensive. >> are you comfortable with the accounting and auditing that is gone on today on this program? >> on the international space station program i have outlook specifically is the accounting associated with that. i haven't seen any cost estimates associated with expanding the international space station program beyond 2020 and i think that is going to be key for the understanding

of approving the funding and everybody getting a good understanding of what is going to take to be the extension the science required and do it safely. >> thank you. one more question into mr. martin we've had some incidents now where there have been some failures. we had some schools in colorado that had experiments on the orbital launch and most recently on the space acts. same school. they did it twice and they lost both. how do we account for the cargo that is lost. is there any compensation to those people are those schools or whatever? >> there is not. space x in the orbital failure/ $650000 of experiments on the flights. the schoolchildren nasa is

mr. gerstenmaier indicated. that is gone. taxpayers are paying for that. >> thank you for your testimony and for being here. i yield back. >> thank you sir. the gentleman from california mr. knight. >> thank you, mr. chairman. a couple questions. mr. gerstenmaier, as a police officer who does investigations on accidents, we have seen a big change car accident investigation and unexpected seen a big change in investigations over space problems over the last 60 years. it hasn't been easy going to space in the 1960s. it is an easy today. can you give me an idea of how investigations go today and how we can go through the process making sure we go through and hit the points and making sure we are becoming safer as we move

through the investigation but also making sure we can go quicker because the faster we move, the faster we can do more of this. >> kind of our our our underpinning his first of all we need to be careful we don't jump to conclusions or assume we know at the failure is to begin with. we do a methodical process of where we gather the data. we need to make sure the time synchronization is critical and that is not easy. if you have a camera that is running one at a time you have to make sure the time on the camera is identical to what is coming from the spacecraft. is the timing of when the event occurred recorded on the spacecraft are after is received on the ground so the radio delay time is important. all time synchronized and then you can start to the methodical process of building psaltery.

we essentially brainstorm. there is no electronic tools available and they ask you to lay the potential failures that could occur and which ones have to occur with another event and they go through and cross off each one of those events as they move forward. in terms of speed what we see here in the case of space acts is because they are vertically integrated company they do almost all their work in-house. they went to testing certain components. they said wide-awake go ahead and build up right now we will be prepared to test. even the short number of days between the event that now they are often laboratory doing some stress testing components that may contribute a parallel activity to the methodical process i laid out. the advantage of the speed he is as we can use tools and analysis. we have software and physical

hardware test in a much faster time than we did before. >> i agree. i talked to spacex several times since the incident and virgin spaceship company went down and they were jumping on it quickly and learning things very fast and it seems to me the investigation process and now with private companies involved it is going a little bit faster. that is a good thing. i know everyone wants to make it as safe as we can and that is the truth. spaceflight is still in its infancy and we are learning and we will be for hundreds of years yet. the faster we can get through some of these investigations the faster we can move in progress. dr. i just had one question for you because there were some good conversation there that we got an astronaut working today with

goblin on the ground and i think we'll get some good information on what effects around the body when we send people to mars on a long prolonged spaceflight. can you give us an idea what will the cat in the next 35 years or shorter as administrator bolden thinks when we will go to mars, not just the radiation but the time and space. >> mr. knight come i apologize i forgot my crystal ball this morning, but i'll do the best i can. >> urich and meteorologist you should know this. >> we have mentioned a couple of risks and what has been interesting to look at if we talk to you 10 years ago i would've told you i would expect 50% beaumont. we thought that is essentially

what gravity confers. we have seen with the implementation strategies for countermeasures on the iss that we let probably better than not. i'm not willing to say we have gone completely mitigated at this point that some of the loading strategies are considerably better. we have also seen newly emergent risks and that's always the problem one in particular the vision of astronaut and that is actively work on by nasa. a number of ground-based research protocols so this is a great example of how nasa quickly identified a problem to immediately engage the community to affect solutions. >> area good. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield that. >> would like to recognize the gentleman from ohio, mr. johnson. >> thank you, folks. i'm a big fan of space exploration. "star trek" all of those things, growing up as a kid and i say that jokingly, but i can

tell you been sitting in my living room floor between the summer of my ninth and 10th grade year and watching neil armstrong and buzz aldrin landed on the moon captivated me as it did the rest of the world. i've never gotten over that. i have tremendous respect for what you folks do and the discoveries we are making through our space exploration process. mr. gerstenmaier one question for you to start off with. the iss has not yet extended by congress. however, the administration has proposed to extend to 2024. how many international partners have agreed to extension and what steps is nasa taking to build a coalition of international partners for an extension? >> the canadian space agency has

agreed to extend to 2024 so we have one partner in lord the canadian space agency that does a lot of robotic agencies and the russians have potentially by the end of this year could be on board with the expansion to 2024. they're actively looking at extension. they could do that by the end of this year possibly by the next fiscal year in april 2016 and the japanese are working not only work with them. the european space agency again working through their overall budget process. they have committed to support us on the orion capsule as you know that the teams in ohio work on the european service module that fits underneath the orion capsule. they are not committed to space and station yet but they do all the activities of getting the member states and countries to

approve then they see tremendous benefit working through their big governmental process so while partners are heading towards the station extension to 2024. >> a quick follow-up. how significant of a partner of the russians? we are pretty dependent upon the russians in terms of getting there and back correct? >> yes, we are dependent upon them for crew transportation. we also use them for altitude adjustment the space station. they provide to read the station. they are dependent upon us for solar power generation. they also use us for commands and other cities. we are mutually dependent back and forth. >> are you having any discussions? i'm sure you've heard the testimony of the potential and

coming of the chairman of the joint chiefs who stated the russians are our biggest security threat. we are kind of and a dichotomy with the russians. are you guys concerned about that? and what is your backup plan? >> again, from a civil space standpoint as i described earlier, we have a strong relationship with the russians and will continue to do that. we need to again look at what happens if the russians pull certain key areas and we work hard on the crew program we want to enter sole reliance on the transportation system as soon as we can in funding for that is critical to get in and plays so we cannot the u.s. capability to augment the russians in a december 2017 timeframe. the other areas i described we have workarounds and we can put systems in place to recoup that

if we have to. at the end it is advantageous if we can cooperate. there is really in a gist of it. that is the right way to go forward. we also need to be not so naïve that they problem occurs that we can't continue on without a certain partner. >> okay. all right. we've had some failures with the commercial avenue. and i am sure that you are but i hope there is a lot of discussion going on because if we continue to experience similar failures like we had with the commercial cargo program and the russians were to back out, our options become smaller and fewer. mr. chairman, i yield back.

>> thank you. i'd like to recognize the gentleman from california. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i remember when the space station was first approved, it only won by one vote in the committee. i voted for it. don't disappoint me now. does anyone here know the level of co2 in the atmosphere of the space station? you have an internal atmosphere. what element to replace co2 in? a lot of talk about co2 in the planet. what does co2 do and the space station? >> we have been holding up

because of the potential eye problems. we are running at three millimeters of mercury or partial pressure of co2 on board station. >> how does that compare to the co2 in our atmosphere? >> slated higher than the atmosphere in the room here. we've typically allowed prior to the intracranial pressure problems associated with the vision we allowed it to go up on the order of six or so millimeters per mercury. that is dramatically higher than the environment here. it is slightly higher on board station. >> have there been any health related problems that this increased level of co2 of astronauts breathe in during their time at the space station as compared to what they would breathe in here? >> yet again we are not sure, but we think it couldn't contribute to the intracranial

problem. the higher levels of co2 you can get headaches and have some other physiological problems. again, we try to control that as well as we can. we have a russian device that removes carbon dioxide and we also have some absorbent material that removes it and then we have a next-generation system that will fly in the orion capsule and they can use that to remove co2. >> we are actually exhaling co2 all the time. if you are in an enclosed environment be very concerned with what it is exhaling. in terms of the future of space station, do we have plans to expand put elements onto the

space station. >> on the u.s. side we reconfigured the multipurpose mama from one location to another location that we discussed earlier. that is all we are going to do. there is no major new additions coming. russians talked about a solar power platform to provide solar energy for their planet. they also talked about a multipurpose logistics module that they may add to the station. but we on the u.s. i don't have any major additions. >> the company has invested a serious amount of money into developing new comp.for space habitat. the inflatable. is there any use of this technology? >> it will be added to the space station next to residents or should capability.

this is an expandable module that will be added. we'll stay there for a year and half the men removed it remove it from the station. the purpose is to investigate the advantages of a module of that of a rigid pressure so it is to understand what we can gain from the expandable technology. it has a thick wall so it may be better served only and the acoustic environment may be better. the idea is to take the claims in test them with space station and use the unique capabilities to confirm that the module technology is something we want to use going forward. >> it might also be cheaper, which is something we should be concerned about. orbital debris continues to be and always was an expanding concern. i believe this is something nasa

should look at not in terms of base station that we should he thinking about international cooperative effort to deal with the debris problem. that is something this committee should be dealing with at lease in the time ahead. second and last of all let me just note that your report on your cooperation with russia during this time. when there are frictions going on between the united states and russia i think it demonstrates a very wonderful aspect of space and that is when you get up there, you look back down on the earth and some of those problems don't seem as important. we were able to put it in perspective and i'm happy to hear that we are in the russians are putting the friction and

respect it to the point we can work together and create a better world why we do it. thank you for demonstrating that to all of us. >> thank you. we have just had those called and i want to thank the witnesses for their bible testimony and the members further questions. if we would've had time i would've liked to come through in the second round. the record will remain open for two weeks for additional comments and written questions for members. it is our hope they will work more expeditiously with nasa to put together responses to these questions. the committee is still waiting for response to questions from the commercial crew here in six months ago. mr. gerstenmaier, sendak to message the delays are not acceptable. the witnesses are excused in this hearing is adjourned. thank you.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> a hearing wrapping up as those are underway in the house. if you miss the hearing follow it online on c-span.org. south carolina lower the confederate flag in front of its state capitol on a patrol guard

and quietly folded. the flag will be placed in the states military museum. the legislature voted to retire the flag after 54 years pst this morning ceremony tonight on c-span beginning 8:00 p.m. eastern and also c-span.org. live coverage here on espn2 continues at noon eastern with a look at whether lawsuits over what is written on the internet are impacting free-speech rights.

>> greek prime minister alexis tsipras has presented a plan to the european union to keep the country going financially and in the euro and he is now trying to get his party's talking for yesterday package. measures include pension cuts and tax hikes. in exchange greece $160 billion in financial support for three years along with debt relief. the prime minister appealed to the european union on wednesday. we'll show you a portion of the debate now. [applause]

>> thank you very much mr. president. it is a great honor for me to be able to address the democratic europe. it's an honor to address the representatives. at the official time and indeed official time for the european union as a whole. after the resounding verdict of the greek people. to give this lawyer correctly and the greek people directly and to be a part of the negotiations affect teen the future. a few days after we have not been given a mandate.

also the socially just and economically sustainable solution to the problem is now repeating the greek economy. sorry. is never-ending austerity -- and that a recession rate this a circle. the response by the great people at the time but the campaign and the media terrorizing them an end to negotiations with europe. [applause]

i think this was in favor of democracy. as i was saying the greek people and this is not a decision of breaking off negotiations with europe. it is one of going back to the dissenting principles of the reunification. with the sense of democracy and solidarity going back to mutual respects, it is a crystal clear message. [applause] this is a crystal clear message that europe the common european union will either be democratic or if i'll have many

difficulties and advising the circumstances. the negotiations between the greek government and the partners to reconfirm the geo-respect in europe or the rules of the european union and also full respect for the choice of our people. my government our government five and a half months ago but the programs have been enforced for for the past five and a half years and i fully assume the responsibility for what it happened in the course of these five and a half months. however, we must recognize that the basic responsibility for the

impacts the greek economy finds itself in an impact which overall choices made in the past five and a half months, they also extend five and a half years with the implementation of programs who have not helped europe get out of the crisis it faces. [applause] and that is a part for the treasures and we will continue with our reform undertaken. let's not forget the fact for the past five years to greet people have a tremendous effort for adjustment, a harsh and difficult process of adjustment. but this has exhausted the resilient than the patient of the greek people. this is not just something we

should be confined to. we respect the sacrifices and after we made and the difficult decision in the countries as well. many european country a sturdy programs are put into effect. however other programs been so harsh and so long-lasting there is no exaggeration to say my country has over the past five years been transformed into a nice charity, however the experiment has not been a success. over these five years, we have seen poverty unemployment has soared social mobilization has increased us has the public debt which is now 180% of gdp.

today the majority of the greek people have been simplified and the majority of the greek people feel they have no other choice other than to demand that they be given away out of the impact and the most direct democratic way possible and we have to implement that decision. we are in agreement with our neighbors but one which gives us a sign that we are exiting the choices which will demonstrate to us in agreement with the credible and necessary forms that is clearly necessary and we have to recognize the

reforms among the pensions and progress to understand the citizen and the policies of discussion necessary for the middle class or the working class and we must have a basis on which we can have sustainable development. the partners are one in which the credible reforms with the recession and the effects with it. we need to ensure and the program and we have to put on the table an agenda for growth.

they must combat unemployment and encourage entrepreneurship and clearly our proposal for an immediate undertaken in order to get an answer of sustainability of public debt. and we will assign solution to how difficult the solutions may be. our proposal has been significant to meet the requirements and the summits in which we had yesterday and today we are working in support in the next few days. and they have a concrete

proposals and details and we will be able to meet the obligations to subjects and also this year is on. can i say this is not just the economic best interest of the union and that may be crystal clear in this area. the proposals by the greek government for the funding of its obligations and restructuring of its dad are not designed to provide the taxpayers. the monies which have been increased was given to greece. this is money which was given in order to save european banks but never the ordinary role.

[applause] and in addition, starting in august 2014, we have got to disperse on what continues with 7.2 billion it's not our government from august 2014 -- 2014 to 2015. the program was not connected. not because at the time there was an ideological circumstance that we have. there is a program then that did not have social acceptance.

it is not sufficient. it's got to have the public support and acceptance. greece has been involved in negotiations because of the 7.2 billion. we also had obligation to pay the same institutions which are competitive in finance. that was money which was taken from the resources of the greek people. despite all that i have sad i am not one of those politicians who claim that those responsible

for the loss of grace grace has got to it and the country because for many many years, the government has been creating documents and strength name corruption. they have created an access between political and economic. they have allowed back to the shins and it is my right. 10% of greeks have 56% of the national wealth and 10% in a time of posterity.

they have not broken their share of the pressure. this is a major injustice and the programs have not made things better. on the contrary, they've made things worse. they were supposed to respond and the tax collector mechanisms under the excessive field and national officials. one of the reforms has held when it comes to the next phase between the political establishment the oligarchs and the banks. and yet, none of the reforms have intrigued the functioning

of state, which has become a leader to working in the interest -- the vested interest rather than the common good. the proposals are based on the progress change. these are reforms which previous governments of the political regime did not want to take place. they did not want the changes to take place in greece. that was not the purpose. the fact is tackling the oligarchy and cartel of added interest. we have got to turn the page of that as a way finances and unemployment.

we must implement our government with the difficulties and they are the ones we are going to luck out with our partners. today we calm with a strong mandate from the greek people and we are determined not to have that clash with europe but to the establishments in the government which have taken us and take in the eurozone. europe finds itself -- [inaudible] if only a manifestation of the inability of the eurozone to define acting solutions to the

self fueling debt crisis and this is not exclusively a great problem. this is a european problem and the european problems require european solutions. there is a history of conflicts to compromise and it's also a history of convergence. it is a history of unity. and this is why we talk about a united europe and not becoming a divided europe. at this time we are called to produce a compromise which will break off negotiations.

this is in-line with the european union all of us have taken the measure of the situation and i believe together we can rise to this historical challenge. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, mr. tsipras. >> translator: now the

european people party, welcome to the european parliament. before i address the situation in greece, i am happy to request to the president's role. i believe that the european parliament also should be regularly fall version of the european soul. [applause] as has been the case in the past that the economic policy and budget figures today. i'm going to address the principles of european culture. the example of the decency partnership in the way they deal with each other as friends. mr. tsipras, you represent a government with these things in recent weeks. the defense minister said it will be in unleashing of

migrants to the rest of europe that the settlements were not made. we were told -- i would've thought that comes along to us, he should apologize for the utterly unacceptable pavement. unfortunately, he's passed over them in silence. let's discuss the liability and confident to sustain because you are guaranteed to reform program up until now there are no specific proposals for increased, but on the basis of negotiations and yesterday people were meeting without the negotiations. you are destroying combatants in europe.

you are losing confidence in the rest of europe. dignity means the government has said to the great people that banks are closing because the evil at ecb is wishing to match the pressure. the banks would open on tuesday. they are still closed and it's wednesday. that is not a dignified politics. i would like to continue to discuss dignity. it unfolds in terms of who your friends are. look unfolds in terms of who your friends are. look around this chamber. you will see to the far left in the far of applause. [cheers and applause]

mr. sub 10 committee extremists of europe are applauding you and i think fidel kost wrote -- castro wrote you a letter of congratulations. it seems like you are filling us up with the wrong friends. [applause] >> please continue. dignity of other people in europe. if you're talking about the bad haircut, it is not the constraining its financial and to shins that pay for this. it is basically paid for by 3.5 aliens and it's going to be the nurses in poland and it seems to

me we must look at those peoples did maybe, ordinary people and others in the country. [applause] mr. president, i would also like to bring up the concept of solidarity. this is in dire straits. but you are also -- you know what the situation is that people in bulgaria. how can you tell bulgaria in terms of solidarity that greece can't possibly serve where at least five e.u. countries the standard of living lower than in greece. think about those people please. there is something i would like to add. european culture when it comes

to hope people on this continent need hope in the future. latvia in your situation and in 2009 they were facing an economic catastrophe, but they report to a referendum and they sorted out their budgets, their fiscal situation with faith in the future and their people. it seems to me you are not standing for hope. and your approach, the concept is democracy, democracy democracy. one moment please. one moment please, mr. president, one moment

please. he is enabled to use the time effect of late so he will be able to meet his speaking time. democracy involves people sitting and listening. we all know that. you will have the floor once more. i am grateful for the applause because it shows that the extremist people in europe are trying to destroy europe. i want to say something not done democracy. standing here as a representative of greek democracy with the referendum. now the prime minister is back

here. he's also thinking about organizing a referendum because of the lot begins who fled shouting out for the greeks. mr. tsipras, there is sufficient national perspective in europe. europe is not the thumb of nationalist views. europe is compromised and sadly you have departed and the president concludes. >> thank you. yes, i would say mr. tsipras with race back as the representative of his country and that given that philosophy. i have to say as a political representative you engage in provocation. we believe in compromise. we are looking for success. you don't like europe. we love europe.

.. a >> shame on you.

[speaking in native tongue] >> translator: clearly this is a lively debate. we are aware of that. people offer esteemed. i now call mr. patella. >> thank you, president schultz. i like to say at the beginning that for us social democrats without greece is something that is unthinkable. [applause] >> greece is an essential part of europe and the euro zone. without greece in euro zone, europe would no longer be itself, and that is why we have

opposed and will oppose extremist and speculators who were calling for greece to leave europe. i could quote what has been said, all the extremist positions, or i could reply to some statements that have been made by our committees. but i would prefer to underline the sobriety, the seriousness, the constructiveness of the president who throughout all of these months has worked to find a solution, a positive solution. today is not the time for friends to apologize to each

other. what is at stake is too serious for us to throw around recriminations come into serious to turn this house into a football stadium. is not a time for division and health, divisions in europe. it's a time for us to stand united. because the future is at stake. and we should be above party politics. what is at stake is europe's future, which includes greece. i agree on one point. the president gave an excellent speech today but the most important institution of europe, the parliament cannot have its president not taking part in the euro some other form of asking to invite mr. shulzrinne -- mr.

shulzrinne. you are not a member of my party. but at this point in time i feel i am european. and as a european i would like to say to you that for the good of europe we socialists will never accept -- never. [applause] >> and recently hope has been reignited and i can note that everybody issuing a constructive attitude. the attitude of heads of states of government yesterday was positive and the forces in greece are positive about it possible solution solutions are i think that the conditions are there for an agreement to be reached this week.

and it's now up to the government to decide on reform. support for labor combating corruption, tax evasion. all of these measures that are required, not because of europe would impose a but because they will benefit greek citizen. i think it's also right to discuss restructuring and debt. and that is something that was a commitment in 2012 which should be honored that i think we should think about having a european conference on death which we think about this as well as pooling of debt. [applause] i think and i'm concluding, that this is what we should be thinking about him trying to reignite hope in greek citizens and ensure that it's possible for their medium-term agreement. i would say, president, that

those who read about these days in the future when it has become history should be able to read that in this parliament, in european institution, and amongst the greek authorities there were men and women who knew how to put aside their divisions and rise above party politics, and to enter into an active responsibility and constructiveness to save greece and to save europe. [applause]

[speaking in native tongue] >> translator: -- i should start by saying that something is rotten in the state of greece. i can also add something is rotten in the eu, too. [applause] in the beginning there was the original sin of the currency union. today, today we are reading its sour fruits. i do not know about you, ladies and gentlemen, but i have an impression of a -- that's been unfolding before our eyes. nothing really is what it seems. that greeks want help come at the same time they want to freehand. apparently not knowing the old

saying that he who pays the piper gets to call the tune. the organized referendum which was -- was not about what it was purported to be about. in the greece we have witnessed a number of final round of talks, and we know that final does not mean final. it means something else. the hard-core currency union is speak about greece, but what they have in mind is a monetary union and they want a monetary union. and seeing it as the crucial point. they argue, and you here in this chamber, they say that once greece is out of the entire construction, it would be so

significant, stable firm, will fall into pieces. either one or the other ladies and gentlemen. so is -- so as this continues, i think we will be more and more confused about who and what they are trying to say. is it the currency union? is it the greek society? the credibility of the government? accreditors? the reputation of angela merkel or sol ability of their union? we certainly we certainly companies and gentlemen cannot save -- say all of these would be some casualties, i'm sure. [applause] >> thank you. and now for --

>> the support that they said come and say to him that at the moment whether such a crisis in europe come european institutions has to be united. european council and european parliament, and you're invited here. you invited also on council meetings and also extraordinary meetings please. try to come welcome. you seek you don't have to be afraid of european parliament. i'm saying such a big democrat to try to israel to be. that cannot be true. and you are here so i'm pleased that you are here. because it seemed european parliament that for the first time we discussed in fact we do this. i think there are no solutions possible in the case of greece and in the case of the eurozone why we have not the backing of democracy not partisan at a democracy and debated here in the european parliament. that is what we're doing today. but i have to tell you and you

start coming you said and it's true what you said, you said that greeks did enormous effort and that's true. but the problem is not there. it's that the greek middle class didn't do enough ourselves in the case of greece. that is the problem today. and i am angry i have to tell you, i'm angry because you are talking about reform but we never see the greek proposals of reform. [applause] and i'm angry, like what i'm angry, why, i'm angry because we are, in fact, talking to already five years come with the help and with the support, you hear them other people of the extreme right. and not only we are sleepwalking the last month we're running to address it. i have more the impression.

but it is not you and it is not we who pay the bill. to be the origin of greek citizens for going paying the bills of 30, 40%. [applause] and so i have to tell you if we want to avoid this come there's only one possible way and you know this very well come and the only possible way is you come forward in the coming days in the coming 48 hours with a credible reform package. and it doesn't mean to say yeah, i want to end so on its own. no that means you make a roadmap, you make a clear calendar. no intentions that are in the dates the different reforms. we need desperately increase. and let me give you let me give you five things what you have to do. [applause] let me give you the five things that you have to do. you have to -- i am ready to come to athens to discuss with you because i like the

challenge. with you directly. but what you have to do first ending the system. you need to put legislation for that on the table. that doesn't exist. and not to apply yourself because i.t. weeks ago the directors and the ministry of education have to be nominated, and the accident -- only one that don't know what it really is. that's the reality. you are using the system. [applause] you are falling in -- you're using a system. you are falling -- [inaudible] who is a big part of change increased. using the system for years and years in your own advantage. you have to downsize the public sector. i know it's difficult may be for the leftist but it has to be

done. because 800,000 people civil servants, depend on it. [applause] you, mr. tsipras you have to transform the public bank and apply the banking sector. you have to open the markets and the professions for young people. you don't have legislation. put legislation on the table to open at least 10 -- and finally, finally lets and proposed to end the privileges in your country the privileges of the owners the privileges on the military, the privilege of the orthodox church in your country, the privilege -- [applause] you like privilege, okay, very fine. very fine privileges. but i know. the privileges of the greek islands and the privilege not to forget of the political parties the privilege of the political

parties have received everything loads of money from public banks who are, in fact, bankrupt. also your party received such money. and that is a strong -- what i ask you is put all this together in a package and put it on the table now in the coming days. i'm pretty sure that from the other side, from the european side we've got to be ready to find a solution for that find a solution for all these problems. but it has to be done that way. and you can do because there was never a prime minister increased who have such a strong mandate as you. if even a double mandate. you won the election and you won the referendum. so you are in the on position of the only political leader in greece who can put an end to do that system in greece. [applause] and i say to you we also our responsibility. we have to make -- might have

been you can redemption as fast as possible and we have to do it as fast as possible also on the council. but first things first. you need to come forward with reform package. it is not a chicken or egg discussion, ladies and gentlemen. and java choice and that is my conclusion. the choice that we have is very simple. how they want to be remembered? as an electoral accident who made its people poor in this country? or want to be remembered, mr. tsipras come as a real revolutionary reformer in the tradition of -- i'm talking of the real one, the big leader between the two world wars and modernize this country a liberal who, in fact organize his administration. that is the choice to make.

and i know what you people want. 80% of your people want to stay in europe and in the eurozone. so what you can show your a real leader and not a false prophet. do it. [applause] >> i know the united left group. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: president prime minister, part of my speaking time has been given,

yielded to other colleagues in the crypt so i will be brief. ladies and gentlemen, this is not the time given the crisis and given a disaster which has become very tangible for many people and hits home. given the data days ahead, at this time let's not use this stage to demonstrate talent. can i say to you and very directly come straight to you we don't need arrogance at this time. you can keep that for other places. that's not going to do anyone good. this is not some kind of -- this is the european parliament. and i noted that you were very sober, very restrained and modest in setting up position

from your position because we should be. we don't want to suggest that sunday did take place. people were saying enough. that's what they were thank him enough. we've had enough. they were saying we want to stay in the european union and want to stay in the european zone as well. so do not listen to the hard lines, hardliners on the creditors site. it's not sufficient to push to keep your own ideological prejudices and one to voice them upon an unwilling people. we have got to do something now. if we look back at the history of germany under europe, learn lessons were acting chairman has proved with the debt which is built up from the first world war that they didn't have to pay for decades.

they were still had that from the first world war. this is why there was an international debt, content in 1953 which laid the basis for germany to go forward. and it's about time that we look into the history and we shoulder this responsibility towards people in europe. and not to engage in one upmanship and pretend that we know at all out or got a monopoly. that applies to the germans to whatever group they would want to the that's the way ahead. it's what it's got to be. let's get it on the table and let's discuss what decisions have to be taken and find solutions which are sustainable which will last and not just give us a short term gratification until we stand up and ask other people to do stuff. let's respect people in europe and let's respect the decision

taking on sunday. [applause] [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: the green group. >> ladies and gentlemen, yesterday while i was preparing myself for this debate i scanned the newspapers that i stack up for the last week in my office because that's what i always do. if i could do things are going to pan out and that is really the case at the moment. add-on the top of the newspaper pile, last week's papers, there was a german publication with a quote. the portrait of a greek pensioner weeping, who broke down, stand in front of an atm machine at the bank. and that is the process is to

the photo that is burned in my memory for this week. it seems to me that photo goes some way to explaining the reasons why 60% of the greeks who voted on sunday voted the way they did. and that photograph also captures some of the motivations of the people who voted yes. because the vote in greece was a response to the impoverishment of large swaths of society. a lot of people in greece simply can't go on come at the vote is quite clearly a vote expressing hope for change with reaching out to the european union. and that's the task before you. i think you are at an historic

moment. you are the strongest prime minister of greece in my personal recollection, edge of to be the person sir, who manages, who presided the prospect of reforms for your people but in an orderly manner. to reform program has really turned reform into a word you can only stand back from aghast. and you might say i am naïve but i expected that you would come your and not just a let's put them into nepotism and corruption, cronyism. but i thought that mr. tsipras would come along and say this is how i'm going to go about it with my people.

so we want to have your views of a fair tax system set out thought you were going to present your view of a fair pension system. we all recognize that you can't cut further low pensions, but how can we ensure the system is fair in greece? was the future of the health system in greece? so you don't need clinics for the indigent, for example. and i hope it's going to possible to have ideas from you for a better future so that you can ensure that you got the europeans on side with you. that's what we need. because the cohesion that's been eroded over the last five years can be recaptured if you with your people talk with the people of europe. and i'm not just talk about heads of states and government,

or some of the people today who were not terribly keen to seeing you being invited here. it seems to me you need to get into direct debate with the europeans, as was said. you have to move away from this erroneous policy of debt burden. now picking up on other things. i think when you have a solution not just for the greeks by solution that can be applied to other countries in crisis. then it would be fair then it would be european. mr. tsipras, i know that you can't stop time. i really wish it were possible to do that but clearly everything has to be decided this week. please listen to those who earnestly wish to see a european

solution. think about this. because you are making a strong call to democracy. europe is a fast. they need solidarity, too. but democracy and putin, i'm sorry, does match up. i wish you success. i wish success for europe as well. [applause] >> thank you. what we are seeing this morning and a deep across the whole of europe is an irreconcilable cultural difference between greece and germany. a split between the north and the south of europe. europe come european project is actually beginning to die. nobody in this room will recognize that but actually peoples of europe are saying we

were never asked whether we wanted this to this has been hoisted upon us that we need to understand why eu to support. does backed up by the car but dangerous, believed that if they put in place an economic and monetary union, that as night follows day, there would be political union, as though the acceptance of this project, at the north and of europe would converge. that we would all start to love love each other, that would all begin to feel a european identity, that we would all begin to show allegiance to the flag and the anthem. is of course who criticize this were told we were extremists and we lacked vision. one vision we didn't like the as we understood that the countries of europe are different. and if you try and force together different people for different economies without

first seeking the consent of those people it is unlikely to work, and the plan has failed. this isn't just greece we are talking about today. the whole of the mediterranean now finds itself in the wrong currency. and yet virtually nobody in the political every has got the courage to stand up and say that the indeed i feel that the continent is now divided from north to south. there is a new berlin wall and it's called the euro. and the old entities have been reviewed. just listen to the way of the german leader of the christian democrat group this morning attack mr. tsipras. i think is absolutely disgusting but it shows the way chose the way north and south now feel about each other. mr. tsipras your country should never have joined the euro. i think you acknowledged that but the big banks of the big businesses and big politics forced to be. goldman sachs, the german arms

manufacturers were all very happy when the bailouts begin, they were not for the greek people. those were for the french german and italian banks. they haven't helped you at all. and features austerity, the years of high unemployment, increasing poverty, none of it is work. in fact, your debt to gdp ratios gone from 100% at the start of the crisis 180% right now. it would be madness to continue on this course. you've been very brave. you call that referendum one of your predecessors tried to do the same, the bully boys of brussels have him removed. they tried to do this again. you would have to leave the euro and laid the european union or even mr. schulz, the president of the parliament of a may be new to at the greeks voted no their power supplies might even go down. sub from threats unfolding but the greeks stood firm. but, sir, you cannot have your

cake and eat it. they would give you know more these people. they can't afford to. if they give you more, they will have to give other euro zone members more. so your moment has come and frankly, if you got the courage, you should lead the greek people out of the euro zone with your head held high. get back your democracy. get back control of your country. give your people, give your people the leadership and the hope that a cricket test it will be tough for the first few months but with a devalued currency, with friends of greece all over the world, you will recover. [cheers and applause]

[speaking in native tongue] >> translator: mr. tsipras, our positions are very difficult, different angle series of topics. there's a question about that but we share the desire to give the protagonist of back to the people against the interest of the bureaucrats. so we were quite pleased about the organization of the referendum. this referendum on austerity in greece meant return to the noblest kind of politics in europe which is often too technocratic. europe's institutions have dropped the mark passionate mask and showed their true face. poor. they tried everything to in the referent of the ever all kind of moral pressure brought their to forecast about the disasters that would take place if there was a boat, a no vote. we have the same kind of thing,

and the president of the european parliament sitting here, even dared to suggest that your democrat elected government should be overthrown and replaced by government effort to craft. it was published on thursday. but your group countries have tried to prevent the publication of that and that report reflected your views that greece could not repay debt because of the debt is unsustainable and thus must be renegotiated and the european central bank finally tried to intervene by strangling greek banks for the closer i think this is the first time in history a central bank has unleashed an and completely artificial crisis. but the anger of the greek people vis-à-vis your austerity was such that they swept everything away from open and about the threat the greek

people raised their heads and showed their true mental. what people would've accepted what the greek people put up with for five years? who would have accepted -- under the liberals who applauded the list of charges? widget accept that kind of campaign? which you okay today to campaign for the why not promise your perspectiperspecti ve people 25% cut in wages, a 25% cut in their pensions? wind up with the across your peoples quirks they would love it. a tripling of employment. be brave, live up to your promises. so, mr. tsipras the euro and

euro austerity are siamese twins. is a factor i think that in agreement with european institutions in a concerted fashion, greece must negotiate a way out of this clamp, this steel jaws that are closing on this side of europe, the euro. all of the people in europe should look at what's happening in greece. and maybe an exit from the euro would allow for renewal of durable growth. that's what the european, sort of the nobel prize for the economy has said. but others are afraid of is that greece will show by leading figure that one can survive outside it than any. but euro estimate a reversible as you been trying to sell us from messages for use.

figure is not forever. no. europe is not a country that cannot be reversed. the first crisis of europe was a financial one, the second crisis is a political one. with peoples who dared to say no and you can't hope this crisis after some mistakes have been made to it's high time to the concerted dismantling of the euro area, the country into your group would go credit and tensions would be diminished. thank you. [applause] [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: thank you very much indeed. i would first and foremost like to address you mr. schulz come under unacceptable words about the greek referendum.

who and on what basis said that if no wins the greeks should look for another currency? we want mentality competence what right are you getting involved in the political -- i would like to address the german chancellor for what she has done. what the germans did to the greeks during the second world war, over a million dead, people were lost, they starved to death. and there was this huge -- thousands of millions from these repayments which are refusing to be included in the question of debt. so you dare turn around and speak in this way.

and what about our life? you and others should be turning to the chancellor of germany and asking her about what is do. now, if you think the greeks will bow their heads when they didn't during the slavery of the ottoman empire, a decision which was taken yesterday that no it was a no, and the tsipras government now is planning apparently to pass the new agreement, a new referendum. but we can exist and survive without the euro zone. the euro zone will either tonight or do you solve. thank you spent the greek plan presented includes pension cuts and tax hikes in exchange of greece wants nearly $60 billion in financial support for three years along with some debt

relief. the plan will be considered tomorrow by european finance ministers ahead of an emergency summit. the european union leaders on sunday is expected to make a decision within. south carolina lowered the confederate flag in front of its state capitol in columbia and highway patrol honor guard quietly folded the flag today. it would be placed in a state military museum. here's a look at the 10 minute ceremony. [cheers and applause] [background sounds]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [cheers and applause]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause]

[chanting] u.s.a. u.s.a. u.s.a. u.s.a.

[inaudible conversations] ♪ (singing) ♪ goodbye hey hey, goodbye. ♪ (singing) ♪ ..

against public visitation and they basins are online critics with the extensive litigation. they say 28 states have enacted statutory protections against us last in addition to briefing we will discuss the religious mission called the free-speech act of 2015. why on c-span2.

>> this event is hosted in condoms and with the internet caucus and we would like to thank the cochairs on the house side of the congressman and on the senate side senator john thune and patrick leahy. so thanks to the caucus. a little bit of housekeeping before we get started, for today's comment it is a slap talk with two t.'s if you would like to follow along and the information from the panelists. we have another event coming up this week. we have inexperience experience on this issue we have any austen with the washington city paper and the head of the federal public policy for yep at the

american social justice advocate kevin goldberg the attorney and we're looking forward to hearing from all. feel free to jump and even if i direct a question that any of you individually. it's traditionally been an issue by journalists but with those like yelp, glass door people are reviewing businesses and it's coming to the situation where individuals are at risk of being sued by those companies or individuals about whom they are writing on this platform so it might be prepared for those type of insurance or legal teams individuals are often intimidated by these lawsuits if they don't -- they are scared of the costs of these drawnout legal processes and they are intimidated to kick those

reviews down and you can imagine if they get dragged into all suits come as we have this chilling effect of the freedom of speech online so that's what we are talking about today. slap suits against public participation is the terminology for it. you might hear the term having thrown around today quite a bit and recently we have introduced the speak free act in may but has a number of cosponsors at this point so we are good to be talking about that i'm packing the legal and procedural issues and also talking more broadly about what it means for the freedom of speech online. the advisory committee and the caucus don't take any positions on the issues we try to have as balanced discussions as possible. again, feel free to ask

questions of each other as well and with that i would like to turn to kevin who has done a lot of work on this case. what are slap suits and why does this matter to people? >> my name is kevin goldberg and am under i'm under my clients are the sort of old-school slap subjects the american society of news editors and the association of alternative news media is another and that is a membership organization that includes the city paper and i'm also on the board of what is called the public participation project that is dedicated to raising awareness about anti-slap statutes. so i'm not unbiased on this issue. i have a position that the statutes are a very important protection of free speech. we will hear a very personal story i'm sure from amy and i have some backup if this shows

you how egregious this can be. but that's something to know. it's not like slap lawsuits in the last five years they've existed forever. everybody is able to reach out to the entire world. the reason the anti-slap statutes are important as they level the playing field for you or i. if they are powerful or have more money than us. i said i worked merrily with media organizations. a lot of them obviously don't want to be sued. even from the lawyers position i get stressed out when i have a client threaten a lawsuit. we will get that out of court in

days. that isn't real life. real life is you get a lawsuit and the clock starts ticking. if you have one more generous than me unless you have one more generous it may not charge you for defending them that where, tim isn't cheap. in deposition and court is a minute you're not working. anytime you're not spending is going somewhere else. and it's effortless lawsuit designed to do nothing more than keep you from criticizing somebody else. that's why it's important because you may win this suit but it will take its toll and be anti-slap statutes exist but not in federal courts right now and it hasn't been fully recognized in every case it's gone to federal court. given that ability to knock out

the frivolous suit and in some instances get your fees paid for. so again somebody brings the suit against you, great. it may get knocked out quickly. but they might think twice if they actually have to pay for that so that's why this is really important. >> i am amy austin from the city paper and as kevin said, it's one of a local alternative of what's called local alternative media. the papers and media companies like city paper across the united states from our job and

focus and passion is to cover local news. so we cover the local news and culture for the cities across the united states. the companies are part of this association. your local news source was sued. we wrote a fantastic story. we wrote a story about the redskins and it was called the cranky. this is full of what they get the name right. cranky fans so this is in the fall of 2011 and published after the loss to the philadelphia

eagles. it was a monday night football game and we completely screwed up the game. the sportswriter dave mckenna wrote it and he took all his knowledge about daniel snyder and the redskins. this stands the test of time and everything in it was accurate. so you know it got a normal play at the time like when we published and people enjoyed it. there was talk about it but then soon after, we got a letter from dan snyder that famously said

and this is the money line, it was the same -- we were owned by an investment firm so this is part of the story too that the ownership was in flux. they are aware that we can be sued at any time as part of the business we are aware that we want to get everything absolutely right all the time. so what happened here was the letter but initially went to the investment firm and the investment firms do not like to get sued but in the letter stated mr. snyder has the means

to protect his reputation and such litigation wouldn't be a rational strategy for the investment funds such as viewers. indeed the cost of litigation with pc medley and quickly outstrip the asset value of the washington city paper. so what he's saying is that he could quickly outstrip the value of the washington city paper, so his intent was to criticize business. and that's why we are here today said that there was an anti-slap wall in dc at the time that was relatively new that led presumably for him to draft the case against us but it's the classic case after the small media organization and it was a very difficult trying in time. what they wanted was an apology

which i wasn't willing to give because we have nothing to apologize for. there was nothing to retract, there was nothing wrong with the story. they would have been pleased if we had fire to the reporter. i don't think that was ever expressly stated that those are the sort of things at play that we had to defend for over a year >> that's the media decided that we would expect from defamation suits but now we have individuals maybe you can tell us a little bit about how that changed with review sites and online platforms so people can write whatever they want and may be thinking about the consequences and how they've been able to defend themselves.

>> scheuer. so i'm the head of the federal public policy at yelp. if you haven't heard of yelp before coming it is a website that connects people to businesses and places that are around them. currently has about 142 unique monthly visitors and 42 countries have started 11 years ago in the city in san francisco and as a part of that process as a mechanism for connecting people to local businesses are bound then it's also become the site for aggregating the reviews so for example we are here in washington d.c. right now and i think that the rayburn cafeteria has a two star rating. so whether it's restaurants or dry cleaners or plumbers or businesses in general or places

in general they have a yelp page generally speaking and ratings that are there and it doesn't just apply for yelp. you have sites like trip advisor and hotels and things all around and you have a site that's come up for doctors and finding the best doctors that might be around you. google has results that are there and even facebook if you go to the business page for facebook now you will see the ratings and people will leave reviews and opinions. so really with the drive of the social media platforms and the internet, there's also been the rise of the review coach or that it's been at the front of which is where individuals have had the ability and opportunity to share their opinions and fact-based experience with the

particular business over a particular place and they do it for the greater sort of community service for the good. why do i go want to yelp and rate a business it's not because i'm receiving any compensation out of it but it's because i want to let everyone else on the internet and my neighbors and others know the experience that i had their area in the past, you might ask your neighbor or friends or use word-of-mouth. now thankfully we have the internet so we can get this broad experience out of it to make better purchasing decisions or better decisions in general. but along with that obviously when you have a platform and the internet in general which is a bastion of free speech of where you can go and express your opinions in the first were held just in general as it is

protected in the first amendment you are occasionally going to have circumstances in times where people won't necessarily tell the truth and it might not be a fact-based experience, but in general under the circumstances platforms like yelp trip advisor and other mechanisms and tools that allow the statements to either be flagged for business owners to respond. so the ways that the platforms but it helps to ensure an especially in yelp it is an honest first-hand experience. a lot of people might think also that the platforms people go to complain they go to just sort of leave a bad experience. about 75% of the reviews are three stars or above.

you might think in your head i'm going to go and really being that the business that didn't give me good service and others will share their experience with the greater internet society. and so because you do at times unfortunately have instances where business owners or individuals have not agreed with the statements that have been made about them and he mentioned it from the standpoint of the city paper. let's look at the internet platforms like yelp or facebook or others as basically being online digital media so it's like a continuation of that and unfortunately some business owners have decided to go the route of either threatening or actually attempting to sue people based on whether it is a yelp review or opinion and the

fact of the matter is these are first-hand experience opinions. i have experienced this. maybe it was a bad experience but generally it is still your first-hand opinion. but you have this group of individuals that sometimes decide to use litigation that has response for trying to engage in better customer service and that's what we sort of saw this happening and what we worry about obviously and why we've been a big supporter of the anti-slap legislation. the people that are out there trying to either threatening to sue or are going forward and it's fallen under the mantle of

the suits they don't necessarily expect to go to trial. they don't necessarily expect to win if it does go to trial but what they are hoping is that you would rather remove your yelp review or trip advisor and never speak ill about that company again. that will expend thousands of dollars to actually defend your statement in court. and you might think it's my review of a long word cafeteria or maybe it's not a good case because it is a governmental entity. but if we were talking about the lounge people most of the time if you're an average citizen you just decided to share that opinion you will say it's not worth that.

i would rather take it down then have to go through that whole process. one we feel it is that strong because we have the right to share that opinion and almost fact-based opinion and it is protected by the first amendment that sort of the first point is protected and the number two, we also concern from the old standpoint of the chilling effect because even if it's not huge, you're not the one experiencing the threat directly if you tell your friends about it or someone else then it poisons the ecosystem as a whole and it is a bastion of freedom of speech where you can go and share your opinions so we are worried about the slap suits

infringing on your ability and experience. >> i don't mean to halt the microphone but one thing we talked about people that might stop and think before they say something and it helps you continue that thought but what about the times you don't stop to think and how many of you you don't have to show your hands just nod your head silently many have been so angry that you turned to twitter and ran wax you suck, insert name here. dear cable company you were supposed to be here at the site is. they are probably not going to sue you but what if they did.

>> i am here representing the association for justice. some of you know we are the world's largest trial bar committed to ensuring that all individual consumers, family, patients, workers have access to the courts to enforce the right so when we are talking about how to define i agree with what the rest of the panel is saying and i want to highlight two points because this is important. one is the lawsuit that person bringing them has no expectation they are going to win in court they are bringing it to or harass someone.

i waited so usually there is a disparity in resources between the two parties. the person bringing the lawsuit has tremendous resources which might be sanctionable because they can pay for them where as the smaller litigant has to defend against something like this so those two points are important and i stress than because how we defined the lawsuit sometimes does get lost and i am here today because i'm going to be presenting an imposing view on the bill introduced not because i disagree that it's something that should be addressed. i disagree with the way that it's defined and we have serious concerns that it's applied to a lot of lawsuits that you don't intend. such cases as whistleblower lawsuits or security lawsuits by

nobody's imagination something you would consider a class lawsuit. >> you have about 28 states and washington that have their own anti-slap legislation. some of them are broad and narrow and others we've had in the past and this one i would like to hear. how does it differ from that state legislation and what is the purpose of introducing it at the federal level? >> from our standpoint that there is the need for federal anti-slap legislation because

given the nature of the internet in general you can often times have circumstances where you have parties in different jurisdictions so that's something that would necessitate a soft and also the differences in the nature of the state law in place so 28 states on the books like california or the state of texas they have anti-slap laws that are modeled on those two pieces of legislation but then you have to states like new york that doesn't have a very good anti-slap law on the books. at the same in pennsylvania. sometimes what you end up having happening is a form shopping where basically if you are a

party that is looking to sue someone based off of the statement online you would like to see if you can find a state without an anti-slap law so from that standpoint when you look at the statements on the internet having a federal standard at least baseline when it comes to the first amendment protections we think it's crucial to ensure the statements online are protected. >> the state law has been recently changed which only applies to the statements in the lawsuits brought by the individual and that's not been brought in the last year to give more protection. you do have other states you mentioned stronger. maryland has a weak anti-slap

law and dc has another that has been held to not apply when you are in a federal court proceeding and there is a big gap. i'm going to sue as a resident in virginia in federal court because based on this ruling i think there's one out of washington as well. now the federal courts court can't apply to federal anti-slap law so it's undercutting the state law and that's why we need the legislation. the other states don't have them and also filling the protections of the state that do. >> this is relevant in our case. it was initially filed in new york and then the case was moved to dc so i felt like i had a club in my hand when it was moved to dc because there was an

anti-slap law to protect against the frivolous lawsuits. >> when we talk about what the states are doing they had some kind of a slap law on the books and there is the point they have no consensus. some are very narrow like pennsylvania that only apply to environmental issues and some are like california. they were made in furtherance of the constitution or free speech. that's notably is absent. also any kind of change in state versus federal court restriction. something that i think is really extraordinary in the free speech act actually has a removal provision to remove the state-based claims in the court even when there isn't any

diverse jurisdiction that is extraordinary so it's one thing to have the rule apply to the litigants in federal court because of the diversity of the citizenship. it's quite another to tell them we are taking the cases out of the state court and putting them in federal court because we don't trust the judgment so when we talk about this issue is important to remember that the constitution is based on the assistance of the federalism. but they didn't authorize the left for the state and that is forever in the tenth amendment. so all the states have passed different statutes and some considered a move they moved the statute to be unconstitutional. others tried to draft the statute. what happens to those if you pass the bill that removes all the cases in federal court they are effectively preempted because there's no longer a state statute.

whether it is the product liability or medical malpractice at all exists because the state law. the state cause of action and it changes but because you were telling them now are telling them now it's something that belongs in the federal court. in addition -- >> when you look at the states are doing and what they decided to give including the states that are unconstitutional, what are the unintended consequences of putting a very broad federal bill that preempts all of those and that is where the organization comes into this. we think that there are significant concerns that has written a bill to apply to the cases i just listed of individuals.

in the employment dissemination action those kind of cases are the ones we want to help protect >> i will just jump into the two different reports that were made. when we fundamentally differ already in regards to she described as being overly broad there aren't specific exemptions in the areas that are already within the bill and particular limitations whether it is dealing with commercial parties or whether it is dealing with statements made about governmental actors and that involves whether the state or federal and also those that are made about environmental and other areas, but those are tailored in the scope in regards to the conversation that is dealing with an obviously when we are talking about the question of what is the slap suit there are a lot of things that could be considered but

that's because it comes back to one particular area that we've been talking about here and that is the constitution and the first amendment right to speak and to be protected in regards to what you say making the fact-based statement if you are sharing your opinion in the matter and i'm not going to go down the road of what is defamation but it's pretty clear in the federal level and states of what the defamation are and so what we are talking about here is whether or not if you are in the area that either doesn't have an an up-to-date law in the books because really it's just the fact that the anti-slap law hasn't kept pace with the speed of the internet and how far along we are in regards to how the communication happens, how people express their opinions online and help the state laws haven't caught up yet. there are differences and other states don't have the law on the

books. it would allow for the removal and so it basically says you're in california. why would you bother filing the claim in federal court in that instance if it is a state-based matter? but if you are in arkansas and you're being hit with something that is on its face and slap suit this would allow them to answer that question. is it something that is going through and looking at it on its face when when you filed pleadings and you sort of say what happened and you make this motion in a very expedited process you can figure out this is a slap suit the judge can figure that out and throw it out in that case or at least on that point and then because of the fact that a slap suit was filed

against you and you got to spend thousands of dollars not tens of thousands of attorneys fees then at least have the other party pay that off or provide compensation to that you're not left with your speech having been threatened and then number three with tens of thousands of attorneys fees afterwards. we don't think that it is overly broad and we think that when you're talking about what a slap suit is is an infringement upon your first amendment free speech and the fact of the matter is a lot of speech happens on the internet. don't get me wrong a lot of speech happens but it should receive the same protections as someone like amy received because what they did is in print.

the motion that exists in the free speech act we need to be clear about this. i've seen seen is as effortless lawsuit and find the motion dismissed and that this all goes away. the bill allows me to file the motion if i've made an oral or written statement in the official meeting in the public concern. but that is to the california law that we talked about the statement to the petition which in fact are at the core of the first amendment. so what i do if i show that i've made this type of statement, but it's my first response but that isn't the end of the case. what happens is the plaintiff

gets a bite at the apple and the difference is now the standard has risen and they have to show that the lawsuit in question they have to show that it's likely to succeed on the merits. clearly it is. this is important to remember because what it does if if i'm a defendant and i make a statement and i'm sued that is a big burden. now they shift the burden to the person bringing the lawsuit that would otherwise restrict my constitutional right to free speech. and we do this over time in the first amendment lawsuits. that is the core of the number one lawsuit of people that haven't even gotten the lawsuit, say it with become a "new york times" versus sullivan. it's about recognizing that certain truths. the opposite direction they

could have come to us to keep the falsehood out so we are going to keep some of the truth out. it is a burden shifting and that is what i think it still does. >> or you only burdening people that bring slap suits? they have legitimate lawsuits that have to fight and the most illustrative and sure some of the people in the room have seen the documentary going clear. there is a woman if you remember she bought a lawsuit against the church of scientology and if you are a legal geek like me this is what happened she brought a very legitimate lawsuit against the church of scientology. she was under a member of the church into the church of scientology has used the statute to cripple the case.

so even in the cases where she could meet the burden of proving the legitimate case he goes on the church of scientology in her case has been on the appeal for over a year now. she's never had a chance of the discovery. that's the basic elements of building the factual case. not only would she have that burden but it could have been removed and the federal court because it would have given the church of scientology the rights to remove the case to federal court where i'm sure the process would be even longer than the state of texas because of the judicial vacancies so i think when you think about it yes it is shifting the burden and that is the point we get out when we say you shouldn't strengthen the constitutional rights of some by violating the constitutional rights of others and that's why.

they say the statute is unconstitutional. >> basically it says that the literature may enact other legislation to prevent litigants from abusing the judicial process by filing frivolous lawsuits for improper purchases. we agree. the constitutional conundrum that the statute creates is that it seeks to protect one group of citizens constitutional rights of expression while talking about this today by cutting off another constitutional right of the petition and jury trial. this legislature cannot do. i am submitting its true for congress as much as it is the washington. most notably you are right to petition in the first amendment to the courts for the grievance

and write to the civil right to the civil jury trial in the amendment. we believe it is subject to constitutional challenges. >> i recognize it is a very broad bill no doubt about it. and again it doesn't -- the issue i think that you are making with regards to the appeal is this is one of interlocutor may appeal provided in the statute. to go on when the issue is resolved it's existed for years. on the motion for the summary judgment for the key issue there's a reason for that as well because i as a defendant in the anti-slap if i have to

immediately go to discovery even though it's been answered the wrong way then of course the penalty is on me. as a defendant you are reacting all the time and it's different. it's a very different position to be in to have to be reacting versus making the choice yourself to say i'm going to go to court unlike amy then with the fight ahead of you for so long. >> i would like to bring this back. in amy's case you knew who was getting sued. you have an anonymous screen so what happens is do they have the right to anonymity and where do the platforms come into play?

>> in regards to washington state i have to look at that position by decision by the supreme court in washington state microcosm. they are responding specifically to the washington state constitution and what was the specified area there were issues of concern and how the build had been drafted to being conforming to the washington state constitution and again we disagree on the point of that apply in on the federal level. we don't think that they are the same concerns that are raised. then with regards to infringing upon the rights of individuals to make these types of petitions i could does a little bit more in context or what i think is in the context if you are suing someone for defamation generally speaking you are either a business of some kind or probably a public figure.

>> in filing the the suit isn't eliminating their ability to file this type of suit? we've already established that it raises certain procedural processes in the substantive question of whether or not you are violating the person's first amendment right to generally at the end of the day we are talking about the business or the resource available to intimidate you with a meritless lawsuit. >> if you have 12 people or so on this page for example a woman from chicago wrote a review on a company ended up getting a slapp suit filed against her. or another negative experience with a feedback auto trading and

got slapp lawsuit filed against him. or sued by the dentist with a negative experience on yelp. so what do these people have in common? that they wrote about their experience on yelp. we are talking about instances dealing with the dentist and the doctor's office into an auto company that goes to the point that you can have slapp lawsuit the deal with the different issues and things that ultimately comes back still to that first amendment question whether or not the speech is being infringed upon. but to the second point and in regards to anonymity yelp fundamentally believes and also we think that it's been proven time and time again in court that individuals have the right to anonymity in regards to

statements against fact based experience is the making of a particular person or business on the internet and where this comes into play in his words say you had a bad experience with a doctor you went to a doctor about man things are a gynecologist and what whatnot and had that experience and you want to share that experience but obviously it's about a sensitive area of medicine say you don't want to attach your name to it, yelp is the platform and others allow you to have that anonymity and what the bill does in particular is it allows us to protect that anonymity and then act the least of the plaintiff or the party that is filing the lawsuit would have to take the steps of presenting some sort of evidence to show

that it's necessary to reach that anonymity. we dealt with a case in virginia that was sort of along these lines where a deep carpet cleaning company filed a motion to get yelp to breach the anonymity of seven individuals have posted negative reviews about their business. we fought it and honestly, we actually lost the first two times in virginia in the state court process because the virginia law into this comes back to not being in that state and basically threatening the anonymity of the adventure was that we knew were real. we had the opportunity to speak with them and i ended up meeting one of them outside of the job randomly into these were first-hand experiences that we had to take it to the supreme

court in virginia and ultimately we didn't win on the stump -- substantive grounds that they set up a carpet cleaning company should have filed a claim in california because of the california-based company that what we like about the speech free act is that it still allows us to protect the anonymity of the users or other platforms to anonymously post and it still does allow for the business to provide the evidence indicate the access to that person's information but they are in the process to provide protections. >> i want to echo the point about this idea once again a david versus goliath nothing in the free speech act limits of

those lawsuits that have a greater disparity between parties so that is something to consider and we are talking about anonymous reviews now. part of god speak that speak free act that helps the companies that's clear. we were worried about the scope of the bill and how it is defined to quickly get rid of these lawsuits. she had a lawsuit she's having to spend resources on to try to fight what is essentially a slap notion. >> we promise to give you out --

get you out. we have a roaming microphone. yes, in the white jacket. >> can you give us -- can you quantify how many there are and have they increased given how big of a problem this is becoming? >> so quantify and how big the problem is. >> i have statistics only for california and i'm going to admit right now i'm reading through my notes between 2005 to 2010 california notes the parties report it 2081 slapp motions and throughout

california roughly 481 per year during the six-year period an appeal was filed for 375 cases so put another way nearly 90% of the cases no anti-slapp was filed so given that there are 6.2 million civil filings during the period at the 2,881 constituted only about .046% of the lawsuits. that is just california. >> that's a good question, too. that's for california. this bill is a federal bill. we don't know anything about how many of these are being filed and other states and in federal court. so i think it is a good question to ask if we passed legislation that's pass legislation that's going to circumvent the rules and also expand the jurisdiction of the federal court and how big of a problem is that?

>> one thing to keep in mind is that it's filed in court and moving forward and that is generally the last step of the process that we are talking about. it's not that you immediately say you're going to file a slapp suit and then a final against the person that wrote a reviewer made a statement online. you generally let it linger and then have your attorney go through the whole intended process to try to get the statement either retracted or get the review removed before the plaintiff even bothers filing in court so when you look at that number isn't indicative of the overall threat and the chilling effect that happening. >> in this world that is constantly changing i find it is critical to our society.

the ability to speak and for individuals to have opinions and to not be threatened in the chilling effect you could imagine taking place fairly quickly unless they come together and you're not allowed to threaten because i wrote about the carpet company. the seven individuals probably aren't going to be posting many more reviews. we have an opportunity now to take a look at the communication not only the media organizations but that's what we are looking at. >> we have a very good and thoughtful conversation about

the speak free act of it in the free speech act in particular while they express concerns about the bill there is recently a letter that was actually sent to congress to the judiciary committee that had about 35 different organizations and groups in support and these are folks obviously like yelp which rep advisor glass door, groups such as public knowledge that freedom works these are folks on the left and the right and even the national association of rock casters that said they support the free speech act. that is in regards to the speak free act. in the federal anti-slapp legislation there are more companies out there that said that they support the federal

anti-slapp legislation and even on the state level as well as. you have organizations that have been going around supporting state anti-slapp bills in different jurisdictions as well as so when you look at the bill and the issue is one that has united a lot of groups that traditionally have been on the opposite side of the debate. >> i want to reiterate that point. on the issue of supporting the slapp legislation many of the state affiliates have actually supported the legislation at the state level. so i don't think -- i don't want my testimony to be that there is an solution turn around and go home but i think it is that the devil is in the details and you are getting into a careful balance of the constitutional rights. the discussion is a worthy and important to have a lot of creative thinking and any solution should be narrowly tailored and carefully crafted to make sure that it affects the

slapp lawsuits and nothing but the slapp lawsuits. >> this question is are merrily for kevin but anyone can feel free to answer. i want to ask you a new you think adopting the english rule for the attorneys losing party pays just by itself with a term from filing these lawsuits. >> i'm sure that it would be a deterrent but i also think that would be perhaps a truly overbroad solution to the problem. i mean it should be clear that we don't all agree -- we agree on the concept but not the details and one of the reasons is i don't think this is necessarily broad or go too far beyond the slapp lawsuits where people are caught up in the slapp situation and the little guy really does lose out where

to anti-slapp exists. it will be unfortunate and i do think that on the whole we will look to the broad free speech act and thereby protect more people and there've been a number of people that have been subjected as well. you've given one example and we could come back with our own greed we all agree and that goes back to what i said earlier on the balancing. there is a balancing test that you have to come into and i think that we are just on different sides of adopting full scale the english rule would be too far. >> i want to chime in quickly on this especially in regards to what was discussed earlier. you mentioned in texas the church scientology and the

anti-slapp motion having it tied up at the appellate level discovery. it's my only understanding that there is actually language in the bill as well that if you are a defendant and you frivolously final and anti-slapp motion that he would still be forced to pay some sort of a restitution. >> it does allow the judge to impose. now what you're saying is what you adopt the fact that the losing party plays and it does exist. it's not that it's always going to be the full attorneys fees or that it's always going to be in every case, but it does create the right which is extremely viable as a deterrent than simply saying the case will be accelerated and picked out more quickly spit is it enough to deter the true slappers for people abusing the system and it

detours david but not goliath. they have money to pay the attorneys fees. it doesn't prevent them and that's what you are trying to get at. it does have a chilling effect on david. particularly those that are protecting under the law. there's a time in the country when brown v. board of education was considered extremely novel and they won. that doesn't mean that if they had lost which was a big risk the council took, that they should pay someone else's attorneys fees. i think that in posing that kind of english rule on the american system would have a significant chilling effect on all litigants. we had that in 93 and the federal rules it created a ton of side litigation on the issue of what is frivolous and what is not. ..

and i realize we're almost out of time here, but really helps go to the heart of why you need federal anti-string to legislation and it involves the state of nevada. nevada for about a year and a half has had a really good anti-tree into law in the books.

hopefully he doesn't listen to this or hear this because then i will have to hire one of you guys. steve wynn lost a lawsuit of a defamation suit in california on march 4 spirit don't quote me on that date but i want to say around march 4th based off of the anti-slapp program. about three weeks later around march 20 or 21 and the state of nevada there is a bill introduced in the state legislature to god the anti-slapp law on the books for the last two years. and it was a supported by a fully? it was backed by steve wynn's company. this bill was introduced in less

than three weeks after past the nevada state senate. it passed the senate in the nevada house. companies like el in trip advisor and others were scrambling. a lot of first amendment freedom of speech groups to try to help slow the process and stop what was otherwise a bill that would cut the rights of nevadans speak freely online. eventually we were able to work towards a compromise that kept the core of the law. it goes to the point of when you talk about goliath and nevada billionaire casino mogul who literally goes and works to get the law of the state changed in order to protect the interest of people like him it goes to say you cannot buy much of a fluctuation in regards to legislation that impact the ability of people to speak freely online and share their opinions why you need a federal

minimum standard here and that is what the act does. >> we are right on time. i went to reframe the david versus goliath discussion right away and ring it back to where we started. he talked about it in terms of will the attorney's fees be a deterrent for bringing this suit to kaz will this hurt them in any way. now, that is not the point. the point is daniel snyder saying the costs of litigation will presumably quickly outstrip the asset by the washington city paper. if a simple rollover in the face of having to pay litigation fees. but now they don't. if they believe they have a narrative case and they can get their attorney fees back, they are willing to go to court and that's the way you look at it at the penalty isn't on the persons doing. the deterrent effect is you are pushing on them hitting them

will not make an impact at all. >> thank you all. on behalf of the internet caucus advisory committee, great discussion here. the twitter information and the number of organizations with reports floating around about the issue and we encourage you to look further and come to our events for the rest of the month of july. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> president obama today is announcing three new national monuments covering more than a million acres. they include a desert area in nevada, snow not raging california in an area with limits in texas that will bring the total number of national monuments created by the president to 19. elsewhere, south carolina lower the confederate flag and its state capitol today

>> house ways and means chair paul ryan participated in a wide ranging conversation about the u.s. economy, tax policy in the 2016 presidential race at a political breakfast this morning. it is about 45 minutes. [applause] >> good morning. how are you doing? >> i'm doing well. you brought your own starbucks. >> i will put it behind it and make sure it doesn't block wells fargo repair. [laughter] variegated.

>> let's get in with a little international staff since my world has been dominated over the last few days is a great crisis and to the extent the meltdown in the chinese stock market. i'm interested in your opinion on the extent to which greece if it winds up leaving the eurozone whether voluntarily or involuntarily, if that destabilizes, while markets come back and impact the u.s. in a major negative way. >> i don't think so is the answer to that question. i don't think that a pretext that would dramatically destabilize. i would say it's cautionary. it is a good lesson about progressive economics if you could eventually run out of other people's money to spend. they are getting creditors to give them more money even though they won't meet the terms of the credit. and i think the downside is if they relaxed their terms, you

are basically telling portugal italy, spain others come you don't have to fulfill the terms of the credit. here you go. i don't think they have a choice in europe and the choices up to the greeks and we'll see if they come back to terms. it certainly doesn't look like it. >> -- i don't see a choice. >> -- structural reforms. what about china, the stock market there. the combination of those things were his people with geopolitical problems. >> the big picture lesson here is there's no substitute for enterprise economics. no substitute for progrowth economics and whether policies which spend other peoples money, borrow tax them as full-year economy down to somewhere. living beyond your means backing up unfunded liabilities

to systems than as a. those days are numbered in this world. they should be. on china, they've been practicing sugar high economics. china is pumping the keynesian crime. that only last so long and it's not built upon a strong foundation of the basics for market economy the rule of law property rights transparency. you don't have that in china. they have gone on a sugar high. >> was shown to u.s. domestic political issues. you've got one ticket item you got to get done before the august recess and that is the highway funding bill. where do you find $11 billion. you're interested in repatriation exemption as a possible. >> we just found three.

it only cost eight now. eight from now to the end of the year. let me say a couple things. we'll have to do an extension through the year this month because it is impossible to put in place a six-year financing package for highways in the next two weeks and we are trying to impress this point on our colleagues. we in the house want a six-year highway bill. we want to give states the ability to plan a hard but that means where to come come up with a way to the long-term financing. given we're not going to raise gas taxes it is a losing revenue source. they are more effect than efficient. we need to come up with a new revenue source that we are not going to do that in the next few months. we need a bridge financing plan that gets us a six-year bill

select the end of the time. we'll hopefully figured out how to have a user fee system. we basically have two plans. plan a and plan b. plan a is an issue gaining momentum, which is the international pressure and probably half of our tax base leaving us, companies saving america and fix back which would involve a repatriation to help with the issue. that is what our first preference shares and we are in discussions with our colleagues on how to do that. if we can't get an agreement we go to plan b and that means we put the resources to cover the trust fund shortfall which right now is $90 billion. my goal is this fall we know where we are able to plan a or plan b and waited a couple months to put together. >> in the short-term, general fund transfer.

>> we will pay for it. >> stay tuned. >> the answer is no answer. >> we have earned opinions and our own drafts. >> today involves searching couch cushions for money? >> we already have. we are working on that. >> explain to me before we move on how much revenue you expect to come and if you were able to get the agreement on overseas repatriation. how much of that generated what is the mechanism for moving that to transportation. >> i don't know the answer because the scores are moving around. there have been lots of estimates. i don't want to give you a number because it will change tomorrow. the way this works is there's two ways you don't you repatriation. you don't do a holiday and you don't does the money without converting your system over because that would be really bad

policy. you go from a worldwide system where we are the only industrial system killing jobs making american companies less competitive. switch to an exemption system like the rest of the world where every day is repatriation day. you have to convert the system over and the conversion is a deemed repatriation route at a one-time tax revenue that comes in because you have to do that because going forward if you don't do that you will have the old system in new money in the new system exempt and it's really difficult to keep track. there's really no way to convert the system without doing it this way. it brings a one-time shot of money into the federal treasury. around a hundred billion. that is what we see as a one-time piece of money and what

we make sure that doesn't comment the tax reform. this is a way of doing that to make a new tax reform in addition to the high wage. >> do you think you can get buy-in from the ministration on the idea of a permanent exemption? >> i don't know. >> position where portman does does give you some hope? >> schumer, portland about people i've talked to in rob is one of my closest friends. it tracks about the house has been doing the last couple years. we see the framework as the essence of what it could look like. the fact you have a democrat agreed with the republican framework for a few years gives me a bit of hope. >> what about the export import bank? there's a chance people attach that to short-term highway funding despite opposition from a lot of conservative

republicans who view it as crony capitalism. what would you do if xm got attached? >> i don't attach it to anything. i'd rather the house but together a claim call it a day. that is my preference. if something comes from the senate he will let an open rule. japan's elite miserably person go after it with various amendments. i obviously support jeb doing that. but i don't support the highway trust fund. >> is it your view xm instead for good and should be dead for good? >> it is my view. look, 1% of exports or attacks. 99% of exports are. it goes to a handful of big companies and we are basically using taxpayer money to subsidize the credit for

transactions of large companies. to subsidize foreign business purchasing. look what delta airlines today. we are helping competitors by cheaper planes instead of what they can pay for. this isn't something the government should be involved in. this is the government putting up among the scale picking winners and losers and a very narrow group of people getting access to the federal treasury to subsidize the credit. the argument is other countries do this so we should too. i don't believe that. we should be exporting american free enterprise capitalism. not crony capitalism. let's get the moral authority here and that is why it defends the economics we export. let's talk about the real free enterprise capitalism is. >> life is too short for that.

what about the argument of businesses to export now will not export with the private market will not step in and make those loans. >> number one small action. xm more recently got into bed and used it as political cover. if the government comes in and provides subsidized credit, who can compete with that? there will be a private-sector alternatives. more to the point if there isn't, we are supposed to put hard-working taxpayers at risk by subsidizing questionable this be loaned. why should i ask you you come you to give me money to give to the business. >> i want to bring an atom learner who is here from "politico" who has a question for you. >> i want to ask you about 2016.

you are the tax budget guru. what do you think of the plans rolling out. i know read paul has a new tax plan. >> i haven't looked in detail. the way i look at these is i want to see a vibrant debate on our side of the aisle about how to replace obamacare how to fix our country's economic and fiscal problems and restore upward mobility. i think it is fantastic people are putting plans out there. i did this at budgets year ago. it was a fairly lonely experience. i think it is wonderful more willing to stick their neck out there and put specifics out there. what i don't like is when it gravitates and becomes a personality contest. i think the country is better served by people running for office saying here's what i want to do. here's my plan.

>> can you tell us what specifically you like and marker rubio's plan? >> that he has one, number one. number two it goes to the front principles and lower tax rates across-the-board which is a very important principle of tax reform. there's many different moving parts. what i try not to do is be the referee of these things and say what is good and what is bad. the ways and means committee will look at our own options. i shouldn't be trying to douse the enthusiasm for people putting plans out there. i try not to be critical of certain aspects. more candidates couldn't

specifics out there, the more the rest will know our party -- >> let stand for 2016 team for a moment. we talked about an economic plan with 4% economic growth which is an ambitious target essentially twice where we are now above the typical growth rate of the last few decades. do you think you can get there and you said yesterday people will have to work longer hours. what did you think of that? do the american people need to work longer hours and can jeb bush lover 4% economic growth? >> absolutely a forget the fundamentals right. i don't know the context but what i think he is getting at is we have a problem in our economy that too many people are part-time work when they want full-time work. if you look at labor market problems right now, the unemployment rate look slow.

5.3. there's a bigger story and the vickers tory is 1978 or 1977 we had a low participation rate for tens of millions of able bodied adults in america, nonworking not looking for work not in school to get training their people in part-time jobs when they want full-time work. that is a problem which is too many people are not getting on the platter of life. they are not on the notion of public mobility. i think what they are trying to get at is how do you restore upward mobility. how do you restore faith the american idea is still here. the condition of your birth doesn't determine the outcome of your life. work hard, you can rise. opportunities here. if you make of this day, you can redeem yourself. back to me in such a critical

element of what america is all about. the problem is a lot of people don't believe that anymore. for generations in their neighborhood they haven't experienced it. that is a real problem. we need to get at that. we had congress will work on this as well. we need to show we can reignite upward mobility in the american idea. that's what it's trying to get back. >> i didn't hear an answer on how you get 4% economics. >> tax reform, regulatory reform. the pace of regulation flying out of buildings around us is just incredible. it has a chilling effect. >> i think i see some now. >> is right over there. but they are doing is crazy.

sorry. i think health care reform which gets to debt. the debt crisis is still in the future. we are still making promise is the government cannot keep bennett knows it. if we can keep us off the debt crisis, clean up our system, get regulation sane and reasonable and also the energy opportunity in our country is incredible to that handful of things )-right-paren we're in good shape. the basics and fundamentals. do five or six things are so much will fall into place. i believe the need to focus better on restoring upward mobility. people are stuck in poverty. economic mobility is not moving. it is static and there's a lot we can do. you can't fix it without economic growth. in addition you have to do more

to get people on with their lives. >> speaking of jeb bush not too long ago people he talks to come you mentioned somebody he relies on for fiscal budget policy matters. how closely are you in part in any one campaign? >> i'm pretty much switzerland in all of this. i share this thing called the presidential task which is heading the general election fund pre-nominee. because i chaired the effort which is basically pre-nominee is ready to go when the nominee arrives so we have kind of a turnkey operation. lessons learned from the last would. we realized there were things that should've been done that didn't get done after the last election. i'm chairing the effort to get that done. because of that i speak to which candidate wants to talk. we know each other pretty well.

>> switzerland is not necessarily one that comes to mind. >> there's much more 2016 we can do. i want to talk about policy because i'm obsessed with it. i'm a question of trade, you had a big fight over tpa. you got that done alternately. was there a point in that debate when you thought you would not be able to deliver tpa to the president's desk? it seemed like you were confident the whole time. people like elizabeth warren and beating it up like crazy. >> i always thought we would get it done. i always thought failure was not an option. the way i have an attitude towards what i do. if we fail to do this we would've said both parties decide america will not engage in america has chosen not to lead in the first century global

economy. that was not an option. pelosi, we didn't know she was going to do this. i was watching her speech today when she came out against a part of this and try to sink the bill by going after that. that is when i realize this was in trouble and kevin and i am the floor decided by cisco and i won't go into all the details. we went to ron who really exercise courage and leadership. we said we are going to have the vote anyway. are you guys with us? he said okay. we had the vote anyway. proved we had the votes got the votes and because we did that that gave us the ability to come back and separate issues so they can play the sabotage game. there was a 20 minute moment there where i wasn't sure

between when she said no ta went down decided to bring about any way we passed a few months a few months are past it i realize we could find a way. >> were you disappointed hillary clinton didn't take a firm stand? >> that is not even softball. that is tivo. [laughter] >> it does speak to the larger issue of where trade is at democrats right now. obviously a sensitive issue. she worked on tpp -- >> i'm familiar with that. look, if america decides not to lead in shaping the global economy and writing the quarrels of the global economy then who

will? china. let's look what's going on over there. europe. why would we want to do that? if you want to leave the country, lead this country can show you are going to take tough stands to leave the country. you are not displayed leadership. >> let's talk about tpp. what role do you play in terms of the finest stage negotiations. when you expect it to get done in one element causing problems is the farmer provisions that protect intellectual property for the pharmaceutical companies. some say the detriment of poor countries who want generic drugs. are there so many protections? >> human intellectual property and patents? should businesses that invest hundreds of millions of dollars for technology to save our lives and make our lives better have the ability to recruit investment to do more of that?

is that what you're asking? look again, america, we either write the rules or somebody else write the rules. that is why capitalism is. that is what free enterprise is. again, your first question. >> you don't think there's progress that applies to pharmaceuticals? >> why do you think we have big pharmaceutical companies in america in the first place? why is that america is the leader in the world in life-saving drugs and medical technologies? because of our free enterprise system, intellectual property system and the basic scientific research we invest. let's not get the goose that lays the golden egg. that is my opinion on that.

to your pointer to your question, a realistic timeline is late fall for tpp meaning 2015. another ministerial being assembled at the end of the month. the 23rd through the 30th and reconciling issues. still a pretty good amount of issues. canadians need to step it up and get serious about agriculture. malaysians need to come to the table. i could go on and on. >> taking it to the level. a lot still has to be done. there was a pause but now that

tpa is done, people are coming to the table to finish this. we are very much involved with ustr because we fashioned tpa with all the guidelines. what we are doing right now is making sure that our negotiators stick to the guidelines that congress played in front of them. we monitor this on a day-to-day ongoing basis to make sure the agreement forms to a congress says needs to be in agreement things are not in the agreement they cannot we in the agreement. >> how confident are you that it has a 60 day period. >> that's a 30 day period. >> to think we can get it through? >> they negotiate a good deal. they've got a negotiating a good deal. i remember dave camp south korea back to the drawing board and

they went back and fixed it. they had to get it right and they had to get a good agreement high-quality, high standard agreement for us to be passed. is there partial negotiators and pressure? yes. >> i want to jump back a little bit to the 2016 campaign in your decision not to run. he said at the time you want to be involved on all these issues on capitol hill and tax reform. but you've also said it is going to take a republican president to get the tax form done that you wanted it done. why wouldn't you want to be that president, the person in the white house signing off rather than the house ways and means committee. >> i guess it is a phase of life thing. 45 years old with a 10 12

13-year-old at home i can make a huge difference to the country. these issues trade tax poverty health care reform i'll go to the ways and means committee. back in the home fun weekend and be that and i want to be. just that simple. i watch the packers. >> or draft rothwell. we re-signed merino called. this guy is incredible. we re-signed a key tackle we needed. aaron rodgers has the same line returning. he is healthy. volante adams or third receiver. i am one of the owners by the way. >> for $400 you too can be an owner of the green bay packers.

>> they are going to really team up and i think dante will have a really good year. when you see things like defensive backs and quarterbacks with their draft you know you are in the right place. >> you guys get to see what we really care about when we delve into these topics. i don't often invited in in the sports reporters here. let's jump back to the hill and fast-forward through the obvious recess. we are back in september and the government funding deadline was december 30th. are we going to have another fight to get that done at the last minute? are we going to have a government shutdown in kenya signed an agreement that funds the government the rest of the year? >> the question is will the democrats in the senate shortchanged the men and women in the military by trying to derail the defense appropriations bill.

if they try to play politics with our military men and women fighting for us in harms way, that would be a very bad thing and i would be to the detriment of our military. if they succeed, meaning filibustering defense appropriations, the moment will, and if the law that comes will have to assess the time how you address it. the deal that patty and i did a couple years ago was done reading a two-year arrangement back to where they are. we had a solution for the military and if they try to deep six the solution, they basically say the military subservient to other priorities we have. i think that would be kind of shame. >> everyone other domestic discretionary spending increases

equal to the defense spending increase, without the current military under the bus are being equitable and distribution resources. >> they would say the military subservient to other priorities. the formula party and i put together and the precedent we set was you have to cut spending for mandatory spending in excess of what was back into discretionary on top so you have a net result deficit reduction. that is the precedent we sat if we go into that area. >> the other thing that will come up after that is the debt limit. one assumes they won't be intertwined given extraordinary measures they look at treasury to november december even later than that. it will come up again against the backdrop of the ohio caucuses -- iowa caucuses.

he will have friends that demand republicans not raise the debt limit without significant to spending cuts without other measures that would reduce the long-term deficit and debt. how are you going to manage that given the administration is obviously not going to accept a lot worse than in cut in return for debt limit increase. could we have a crisis and could you book the economy again. >> well all right -- >> i didn't mean you guys. talking about the general disdain for congress. he took it the wrong way. >> i'm just sort of use to it. >> when i say you guys it is a general reference. >> when i see you in the

media -- [inaudible] >> so how do we raise the debt limit? >> right now we've got a few things in front of us. highways as you mentioned, tax extenders that have to be dealt with. we've got a lot of other issues in the discretionary spending before that. it is way too premature to speculate what a debt limit agreement looks like. i don't even want to go there because i haven't given it enough thought of what i think it looks like. >> will take a couple twitter questions because there's some good ones coming in. one of them is what specific regulations would you modify or eliminate to foster long-term economic growth. >> all of them. >> you would love ulster grand prix again. >> your bias is showing again. >> it's not a bias. i'm just making a joke. i'm actually channeling the

reforms. >> i would send them to bankruptcy. instead of having the amplified too big to fail entering the reserve and her regulator when they should be focusing on monday. i would send them to bankruptcy and de-escalate the too big to fail doctrine which has been amplified under dodd-frank. we created a government agency with zero accountability that the cfpb or money from the federal reserve, not even congress which needs no oversight. here is my fear was dodd-frank and my concern. talk to any community bank or any part of america that serves rural communities. what they see coming is cfp via standardizing credit that they can't customize credit to a local employer, small business. since these two big to fail

firms get deemed a systemically risky, they could go to credit markets markets and get cheaper money because they'll get dealt out if we have a problem. the big banks -- the big banks can go out there and take over the business. they get cheaper money, better products because the taxpayer subsidies and a small banks can't and they can even customize credit. what i see as the concentration of economic power. i see more cronyism. i see amplification of today to fail. i see big things getting bigger and small things getting fewer. in dodd-frank. that is bad for america, bad for people who don't have good credit or try to start a business in small towns or rural america. i think dodd-frank puts a wet

rag on the economy. the [booing] clearinghouse says if people make bad mistakes they lose their money, not taxpayer money. dodd-frank doesn't do that. i think we need to go back and reassess the whole approach. >> i wouldn't repeal it and just do nothing. i would repeal and replace it with better policy. >> is another twitter question here which is interesting and that is what were your thoughts on the recent cyclical dealing with climate change. did you read it reflect on it? >> i read a lot of it. i read quite a few summaries and passages from it. it is number one to understand non-catholics think this is like the word of the pope and therefore closes the debate. that is not what this is.

for catholics who are familiar with the system and process trying to start a debate, not steadily paid. number two especially with this pope, i find how he is reinterpreted through the filters every interpreters versus what he writes is really a big role in many ways. number three, it's really important to recognize the totality encyclical talks. it talked about more than just global warming or climate change. they talk about a heckuva lot more of mobility and life in the need to protect all life. not just the environment but it's important people understand totality of the cyclical. this is simply trying to start the debate. >> i want to talk about your characterization by some

democrats who said paul ryan likes to beat up on the poor. he wants to take money away from welfare programs. all of these government programs. it doesn't sit well with you obviously. when you see those characterizations what is the response when democrats look at budget and say they have a punitive budget. >> amu suet and it tells them getting somewhere. it is absolutely unsustainable. i have heard some describe we have a poverty industrial complex more focused on status quo and preservation of the end thinking about reassessing our approach. that is what we are trying to do is trigger a debate to reassess how we fight the war on poverty. let's put money aside.

keep spending the same amount of money. if you look at what we do as a government and as a society to fight poverty, it is not working. i think now that we've had 50 years in a row of this war on poverty, let's look at the metrics and how we define success. we right now define success based on input. what is the funny muffled the program that is how success is defined. what do we have after this? the highest poverty rates in a generation. maybe we should think about doing something different. let's change the measurement of success to outcome results. how many people are we getting out of poverty? what works? patty murray and i have a bill and i feel it will pass this year to figure out how to measure this and how to go from an input measurement system to

an output measurement system. this isn't ideological. it isn't partisan. if we can get outcomes on improving people's lives it has a role to play here, but not the role. i think there's a lot we can learn from people fighting poverty every day. we should be behind them, not in front of them and putting them not displacing them. but opportunity list.com. it shows you what is happening out there. back to the bill is let's have a debate about what works and what does the word. back to me is the better debate that will produce progress. if we just have a republican have a republican democrat liberal conservative caucus or spend more on that, we'll have more of the same. if we tried to fix the problem by having an outcome based on the results-based approach, that

is a debate we want to have. there's a lot of things out there that we can get behind to truly help get at the root cause of poverty instead of simply treating systems. i know you want me to stop talking. our safety net is designed to get people fallen into poverty and keep them there. we need a safety net designed to get people out of poverty. >> let's go back to tax reform. i think you said before the realm of the possible and tax reform is the international peace plus making expanders per minute. what are the prospects for doing this to things. once we are into the fall what product can be produced on the tax reform? >> the last thing we want to do is have another december 11th experience for people to do what taxes look like and then they are adjusted retroactively for a year, which means they go away.

that is not good for the economy. i can't tell you how many farmers i taught to say you give me two weeks in the summer to decide whether i can buy my combine or not. i would love nothing more than to come back from august recess with a plan in place to enact in september. and the house i feel like we could do that. the senate moves more slowly than the house. i would love to make a plan so we can get people and why we want to make these things permanent. section 179 for people who file tax laws like small businesses buy equipment and write it off. pretty simple. it makes sense. we do it every year. it's noncontroversial. everybody agrees with that. but we do it on an annual basis. you can't plan for it. everybody agrees to do it a year at a time without paying for it.

not raising taxes on people and keep them where they are. it makes perfect sense. we are not getting the economic value for getting business the ability to plan and invest. let's just get that done. we disagree with the notion you need to raise taxes in order to keep them the same for everybody else. >> tell me if we get a republican president and you were still in this position in the next congress after the 2016 election, give me your top three things that the comprehensive tax reform package would look like including corporate rates. >> it is not unlike what mitch and i were hoping to do had we won. first budget and tax on 2017 has got to be big. so we've got to fix that entitlement. we need to reform tax quickly.

we have handed to us on an international scale and we are not getting the growth we ought to aspire to. that means lower and flatten tax rates. our industrial average is 25%. to me that as a starting point a good place to start with and that means 25% and must not lose sight of the fact 80% of businesses are not corporations. they file their taxes as people in that topic right now is 44.6 crushing competitiveness. where i come from overseas that means lake superior. the canadians north of us in wisconsin or primary competitors tax businesses that 15%. england announced yesterday 20% is too high so they are dropping the corporate rates of 18%. china did 25. so we are losing our tax base

and competitiveness. you've got to get raised across the board. >> i do want to interrupt you but we are about to run out of time. i can't believe i'm asking about this, but i have to because donald trump is all over the news and it dominates all the time. you see me on twitter. here i am asking about donald trump. is he damaging with immigration and should he be in the republican debate? >> i think his comments are all. >> i will leave that for ryan to decide. >> your future presidential plans, would you like to run for president one day and they should be 2020 or 2024. >> i don't know the answer to the question.

do i feel like i could do the job? i would have joined the ticket if i didn't think of that. i just don't know. >> i want to thank chairman paul ryan for a great conversation. thank you for coming out and join in on the live stream. [applause] >> office of personnel director catherine archuleta will design today.

>> marine corps commandant general joseph dunford went to the senate armed services committee this week to answer question about his nomination to head the joint chiefs of staff. president obama wants him to replace barton bans the later this summer. committee members asked general dunford his assessment of various national security concerns and needs of the biggest security risk now is russia not isis. at the hearing is about 2.5

hours. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> aborting. the senate armed service committee meets today to consider the nomination of general joseph dunford for the joint chiefs of staff. general dunford is no stranger to the members of this committee. we've known about commandant of the marine corps and commander and nasa in a stand in many posts before that. he's a warrior and later the highest quality and we are grateful for his 38 years of distinguished service. we are also thankful for the sacrifices of general don or his family has made over the years unwillingness to lend him to the nation and service once again. as our tradition at the beginning of the testimony, we welcome you to introduce the members of your family joining

you this morning. i would however like to take a moment to express our special thanks to your wife ellen. we know how much of your husbands service in future absence of rest future absence of rest i knew it would honor sacrifices you are making through your continued support to our nation and not to mention the downgrade in your residence that will be part of this. the next chairman will have to prepare our military to confront the most diverse and complex array of global crises since the end of world war ii and iraq and syria isil's army has continued to succeed on the battlefield including taking her body and other key terrain in iraq capturing half the territory of area and every border post between iraq and syria. the lack of a coherent strategy

has resulted in the spread of isil around the world. egypt nigeria, and even to a gannett stand where he visited last weekend. the troops are supporting afghan partners and supporting and sustaining a democratic future. but as even isil and the taliban threaten the future, the president remains committed to a drastic reduction in u.s. residents at the end of 2016. for the afghan government and security forces are fully capable of operating effectively without support, this would create a security vacuum and we have seen what fills similar vacuums and syria and iraq. given your experience in afghanistan, general dunford, we will be interested to hear your thoughts about the appropriate u.s. coalition the president's going forward. meanwhile, iran continues to threaten peace and stability across the middle east through

support of terrorist proxies in pursuit of nuclear weapons and development of the missiles needed to deliver them to target far beyond its shores. in europe vladimir putin's russia continues upon what in ukraine but even as russian troops execute the neo-imperial campaign to undermine ukraine's government and independence the united states has refused ukraine the weapons it needs and deserves for its defense. .. of destabalizing behavior and the vast land features in the south china sea and the military build up designed to counter military strengths and their blatant cyber attacks against the united states. while our rebalance to the asian pacific has shown some successes, especially with deepening alliances, this

process is not deterring china from their course. world wide challenges like this are growing and the defense department is growing larger but less capable, more complex but less innovative, and more proficient with low tech threats but more vulnerable to higher threats. the budget control act and sequestration level of defense spending have made all of these problems worse. army and marine core strength is dropping dangerously low. the air force is the oldest and smallest it's ever been and the fleet is shrinking to pre-world war i levels with the present tempo in drastic operations to the spending we will continue the downward spiral of military capacity and readiness that will compromise each service ability to the strategic guidance at the time of accumulating danger to the national security but

they've also slowed at a the critical modernization priorities imperiling the nation's ability to preserve its national technological advance created this isn't just about the weapons systems via your aircraft submarines or armored vehicles. these are important. they threaten our ability to seize the future and make vital investments in cyberspace and breakthrough technologies such as direct energy, autonomous vehicles and data analytics. the current chairman of the joint chiefs of staff stated if they receive the additional $38 billion above the budget caps at the presidents defense budget request our military would still remain at the lower edge of the manageable risks in our ability to execute the defense strategy. more worrisome every one of the

military service chiefs are self included have testified continued travel to the level defends spending puts american lives at greater risk. unless we change course eliminates sequestration and return to the strategy driven defense budgets, i feel the military will confront readiness, pull modernization problems and deteriorate the morale. they have the broken acquisition system that takes too long and cost much. there was a major effort to reform the system and how to empower the service leaders to their own programs in exchange for greater accountability.

the defense acquisition system based on your years of service finally the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff is the principal military advisor and more than ever we need an honest and forthright leader. they will not always take your advice but it is my hope that he will always have an appreciation of the military dimension of the difficult problems the nation confronts with you at his side. >> thank you very much mr. chairman with me join you in welcoming and take this opportunity to thank him for his extraordinary service to the nation during 38 years in military service for general has served with courage and distinction. finally let me thank his family.

patrick, thank you for being here today. thank you for what you've done to serve the nation and marine corps. it is the most under a -- unpredictable and it has significantly increased while some of our comparison military advantage has begun to erode. it is confirmed on these issues facing the national interest possibly the greatest issue will be countering the secure threat from isis and it's spread beyond

the middle east region. as said earlier this week, the counter campaign will be long-term and employ all elements of american power including military and fellow league -- military intelligence. you will be responsible for supporting the campaign including a denial of isil safe havens and building the capacity to counter the training assistance support from the international coalition. the success of the efforts will depend on the broad effort to address the conditions and allow. i look forward to hearing your views on the situation. and thinking that the most effective role the military can play in supporting efforts on the diplomatic front. regarding iran, there remains no p5 plus one negotiations over the program, no matter what

happens, the department of defense will play a key role in reaffirming the prerelease without partners in the region. confronting the comments and working to resolve. if confirmed you also bring experience to oversight and the mission in afghanistan where you have led to the u.s. coalition forces with distinction. while the security forces have fought courageously against the taliban attacks more needs to be done to build a capabilities and deny any safe haven extremist. the next will play a critical role on the review later this year of the size and footprint of the u.s. forces in afghanistan for 2016 and beyond. another security challenge going forward will be the additional russian aggression towards the european neighbors and reinforcing the cease-fire. congress has made its support including the defensive weapons to help people defend their

sovereignty and territorial integrity. we will be interested in your views of the security situation in ukraine and what additional steps you would recommend for assisting the neighbors and protecting themselves and a kind of hybrid warfare attacks in eastern ukraine. our men in uniform and women in uniform remain the kennedys have confirmed. our forces are nothing without its people into the department continues to juggle the goals of a high quality of life through fair pay competition and exceptional service to the levels of training and equipping. in my view it is incumbent on the nation to provide a sufficiently sized the trained and equipped military with necessary quantity of character and talent to meet the national defense retirement. sometimes that means making hard choices especially in the budget constrained environment we find ourselves in. to that end the department of commerce has considered various

proposals with slow growth in personal course so that they can be redirected to the buyback readiness modernization benefits. i would be particularly interested in your views on the impact of such changes are not enacted. during the consideration of the national defense authorization act the committee had a robust debate to fund the defense programs. and i've repeatedly stated that sequestration is not the approach we need to address the nation's fiscal challenges and more poignantly, it undermines the national military readiness. the defense budget raised by the strategy to support and not question the budget task. even the increase in the spending didn't provide the certainty when building its five-year budget. as a consequence, this instability undermines the morale of the troops and families who want to know that

the teachers have plans for more than one year at a time. we rely on them to provide the best technology available. i hope that he will share your thoughts on this topic at the committee today. the general, thank you again for your willingness to serve the nation and i look forward to discussing this. >> before your statement there are standard questions that the committee always asks of the military nominees command we've always done it and so i would like to proceed with that before the testimony in order to exercise the legislative oversight responsibilities, it's important that the committee and other appropriate committees in congress are able to receive testimony from the briefings and other communications of information and we adhere to applicable law and regulations governing the conflicts of interest. do you agree when asked to give your personal views even if they are different from the administration in power? have you assumed any duties are

undertaken in the actions that appear to presume the outcome of the confirmation process? spec i have not. >> what you end sure that we comply with communications including questions for the record in the hearings? will you clobber it in providing witnesses in response to the congressional request? the witnesses to be protected from reprice over the testimony and briefings? do you agree if confirmed to testify before the committee click >> i do. >> do you agree to provide documents including copies of electronic forms of communications in a timely manner when requested by the constitute committee or to consult with the committee regarding the basis for any decade denial providing such documents? thank you very much for complying with the formality. please proceed with your testimony. >> ranking member can establish members of the committee cut into for the opportunity to appear for you today.

i'm honored to be nominated as the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. i want to think the president and the secretary for their confidence and recognize the general and his wife for their extraordinary service to the nation. our men and women in uniform and military families. joining today today's my wife and our son patrick &-and-sign joe and kathleen who were not able to be here. she's been a great mother to our children and served as an advocate for military families. i occur to her as the mvp of the family. she reflects the enduring that has been tested in over 30 years as a military spouse and i wouldn't be here today without her love and support. i would like to begin by thanking the committee for the commitment to the airmen and marines. you do your support they comprise the most well-trained, well-equipped and capable military force in the world. as i appear before you this morning i'm mindful of the complexity and volatility of the current security that you mentioned. the committee is also aware of the pressing challenges we face in europe, the pacific and the

middle east, africa, cyberspace. dealing with these and other issues we also face the need to restore readiness and modernize the joint force in the context of the fiscal challenges in the budget uncertainty. if confirmed, i will provide the secretary of defense and the president with my best military advice in the full range of military options for addressing the current and future challenges to the national security. when asked i will provide congress with my best military advice and when delivering the best military advice i will do so with candor. i will also work with joint chiefs or civilian leaders and members of the committee to maintain a joint force capable of securing the national interest today and tomorrow. most importantly if confirmed by will dedicate myself to properly leading representing and keeping faith that men and women in uniform in the civilian work force who volunteer to serve the nation. thank you for allowing me to appear this morning and i'm prepared for your questions.

>> thank you very much. a day before yesterday we've received testimony that so far $500 million committed and others than 60 individuals trained to go into syria and fight against isis. what do you know about that particular situation? he's been working at it for some months. the numbers are less than you estimated. the feedback i received as the numbers are largely attributed to the vetting process that they think that they've learned some things in the process of these

but frankly until i have an opportunity to get on the ground and speak to the commanders but i know about that now is secondhand. >> do you belief that we should be getting a pledge from these recruits that they will not -- that they will only fight against isis? >> what i understand as we do not have the authority to take action against the forces so unless the policy would change come about what be required. >> given your experience in the military committee you think it is a good idea to train people and send them into a conflict to be attacked by another entity and not defend them? >> if we trained those individuals and they go back to fight if we expect them to be successful we need to provide the capability to be successful. >> in other words prevent them from being bombed by russia which is routine.

>> we need to provide a full range of capabilities to be successful. >> i recently was over in afghanistan over the fourth of july and there's great concern both among our military and with other afghans about the present proposal to have force in afghanistan down to the embassy centric force by 2017 meaning we would be giving up or turning over the base is in kandahar in the force that is only based in the u.s. embassy as a grave

concern that was voiced concerning that this articulated plan by the president in the united states. as you know they did not expect the season and the casualties are extremely high here than they've ever been and we now have isis getting a hold of it and the iranians providing the tablet and with weapons. is this a wise decision on your part to have a calendar-based withdraw rather than a condition-based withdraw given your background and experience i think you are probably well qualified to make that judgment. >> i am aware of the consequences.

i will provide advice to the president that will allow us to meet and i think that will be based on the conditions on the ground as you articulated. >> rather than a calendar-based decision? >> my experience is that some of the assumptions are not with crime and that is certainly the case in afghanistan. >> thank you. in ukraine it's obvious that the russians continue their military buildup. it was in eastern ukraine and watched the surveillance video that was made in the gradual buildup of the russian forces inside ukraine. do you believe that we should give a system to defend themselves with mass artillery rocket strikes and should we provided them with the systems

to defeat the raid? spinet it's more that we provided that and frankly without that kind of support. i would like to repeat again my appreciation for your service and i'm confident that we will serve with distinction and you are the principal military advisor to the united states and that is a unique role in the 1947 act i believe so i hope he will keep in you will keep in mind your observation to the president and also to the men and women that are serving who may have to send into harms way so they are provided the best

capabilities and finally i open an answer to some of these questions will target of the devastating effect of sequestration on our ability to defend the nation. maybe make a brief comment on that. >> i've dealt with the issue as a service and quite frankly if we go into sequestration we will be able to support the current strategy that we have to support the nation and quite honestly the joint force modernization is catastrophic consequences. >> thank you for your sacrifice. following a bit on the final question of sequestration the administration and the secretary made this clear in the

department of defense are you comfortable with that approach at this point? >> i am comfortable with the approach. >> the other is controlled by elements in the state department homeland security etc. in the effect of sequestration. are you concerned that they could be hamstrung as much as the whidbey if they went into effect? >> not only do we represent two of the nine lines of effort but we cannot be successful in any of the other endeavors. >> we had a significant military

effort but also a civilian agency and the state department and fbi drug enforcement administration all of these agencies considered to be essential parts of your effort and without them and their ability to provide resources, you couldn't have accomplished what you did is that fair? >> we have accomplished quite a bit over the last few years and from my perspective that's because we've been able to innovate the capabilities that you mentioned in a particular state department in afghanistan was absolutely critical to the success. >> one of the most difficult issues that we face is building the capacity of the iraqi security forces this has been the end of her badly tried for a long time.

do you have any sense of the juncture that we should or could be doing differently every recall leaks come before this and suggested the leadership of the upper levels. give us your perspective on the length of time and effort which is ultimately what will secure the country. a stake in the caviar at it will go back almost immediately. the areas of most concern our intelligence logistics, special operations aviation and then more broadly than ministerial capacity and frankly the estimates always where it always always where it was a long-term endeavor that would take years to grow the capacity that we have in this country and we are not trying to develop the capability in this country but the ability of the ministerial

level to support the tactical organizations so continuing to stay the course recognizing that will require the resources is a way for us to be successful. >> in iraq it's the same process in the long-term need to build up the security force ministries >> in some ways the situation is the same with some differences. one of the challenges has been an apprentice or whether he eliminated the quality leaders in that security force so i think at the level it is fair to say they have some solid leaders and feel pretty good about where we are with the afghan leaders and we have work to build to get

them back to where they were a few years ago. >> one of the aspects is this tension in the country that the policy is that to support a unified government in baghdad and work with them so they are able to integrate their ethnic community. does that make much sense? >> that's going to be difficult to do that at this point that is the best prospect for long-term success. frankly if confirmed at any point i no longer believe that's possible than my advice would be adjusted accordingly. >> thank you again for your service. >> in responding to the question they didn't have the authority

to go after al-assad. you didn't have the authority to go after al-assad? >> we don't have the legal authority at this time and it's also the policy administration not go after the regime militarily. >> for the record i would like to have you expand it on that because whether or not it is desirable for you to have that authority. >> we've been talking for a long time with you about the amount of risk that we are at right now. you recorded that they are facing increasing risk. we talked about these in all these areas. how do you define too much risk?

are we there yet? spinning i believe we are capable of providing adequate security to protect the national interest and we are also at the razor's edge that's been the subject of testimony several times before the committee is that the readiness level is at the point that we would go below this level and have to adjust the end of the strategy we would no longer be held to support the strategy. >> they are very much concerned that we never have to accept in the past. in ukraine i was sensitive to that when they had about election that resulted in 96 years. we've talked about what they should be. are there obstacles if you were

to make that determination to give them more to defend themselves? is there an obstacle they can help with or do you think you have that authority now? >> the ability would help them deal with the separatist into the russian threat. there are some policy issues associated that don't fall into the dod. >> i appreciate that answer. they have a need for a lot of these things. i get to conflicting stories. one is from the top people in charge that say by sitting through baghdad you have a problem in getting it up to the

fight and yet i heard just yesterday from someone in charge it's been resolved. is it really resolved or do you have a problem getting the equipment they need? >> i watched the hearing on tuesday on this particular issue and i've been pleased at the issues have been resolved and their support is getting to the kurds right a of way but this is one of those issues if confirmed again it would be one of the first places i would go to visit because it is one issue i would look into personally. >> this morning on the hill general petraeus had a couple and that we could schedule into the nation talking about afghanistan and that nations conflict that but we cannot schedule in end to the war or

the threat from al qaeda the islamic state or other extremist elements of the global jihad going to do a zero option next year would be playing roulette with afghanistan's future. ..ll continue whether we are there or not. i do consume the war would be worse were our presence not to be there. our presence ought to be based on the conditions of the ground and i will go over and check those if confirmed. >> very good. thank you very much. >> senator nelson? >> thank you mr. chairman. general, isis with regard to iraq and syria would you a

scri to the iraqis have the will to fight, to meet isis in iraq and be successful. >> chairman, senator our current campaign is to been on the capabilities of the iraqis decreased forces to deal with isil. >> go over to syria. now, that's a hodgepodge. how much do you think that the assad regime staying in power would complicate the issue of us being able to take to isis in syria? >> senator, my assessment is that plays a significant role. i think assad's brutality was the primary factor giving rise to isis is at least one of the

assessments and i ascribe to that assessment. i think is remaining in power has continue to inflame people and gives isis the recruits and support that they need to operate inside of syria. >> i agree with a and then the question is when do we really press to have some kind of a political settlement for assad to exit? do you have any thoughts on that? >> senator, i don't. i'm not involved in dialogue today in that regard. the political resolution is one of the lines that separate is part of our overall strategy. while i don't know i would assume today that issue is being addressed, and certainly if confirmed by be -- i expected a bit more than i do today. >> general, someone of your stature, it's going to be very comforting to us to have the confidence to know that those

very tough decisions that will be made with regard to to limiting the effectiveness and ultimately defeating isis will be made with you sitting there at the table giving council. if you just look at a map of who is in control of syria into different geographical areas of syria it is a mess. and how you bring order, thank you, senator mccaskill has shown. this is eerie and the different colors representing the different entities that, in fact, are in control in a geographic area. so it's comforting to know that you're going to be there giving your wise counsel. thank you, mr. chairman.

>> senator sessions. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. general dunford, with regard to the budget control act which controls -- includes a sequestered, the budget committee, the armed services committee with a bipartisan strong vote has voted out legislation that will add 19 billion, i believe 23 billion above last year's spending for the defense department. i believe the appropriations committee has already voted out that same spending level and it's on the floor. the problem is that the commander in chief the president of the united states, is insisting on blocking that bill encouraging democrats to filibuster it until there's an agreement to spend an equal amount on nondefense. i believe the fact we have a crisis internationally and we

need to spend more on defense does not require that this nation spend more on nondefense. so that is the difficulty we face. you will be seeing more of that i guess as time goes by. general dunford, with regard to iraq and decisive situation isn't it true that the threat in iraq is not just a threat to iraq but it implicates the national security interests of the united states? and we have a national sigir interest in seeing blocking a takeover of iraq and its extremist group crisis who chop off heads and those other extreme things? >> senator, i would agree that the issue of isis has both regional issues but absolutely of u.s. national interest and a stable iraq that is not a sanctuary for extremists.

>> so i think it's a mistake sometimes to just sit back and say we are going to wait on the iraqi army to get its act together. we have trained iraqi army for over a decade. they have battalions and companies and organizations. they are not well led and their morale is not good. but they have an army. the question is, can we help encourage them to be more effective in fighting back against isis? we do not agree? >> i do agree with that and i would just say despite the challenges, we've added you know some thousands of men and women from the united states central command had been in iraq and conducting strikes into syria over the last few years, over the last year. despite the challenges and very difficult conditions i think it had some accomplishments over the faster we can be proud of. clearly we will do more. i think secretary carter made that clear on tuesday.

clearly we need to do more to assist the iraqis in moving forward and i think that's the plan. >> the president's press conference two days ago did not encourage me and did not clarify in my mind that we have a good strategy for iraq. and frankly i think, general dempsey in secretary carter, followed up on that were not very persuasive either in convincing me or the american people that we have a good plan. now, based on your experience isn't a fact that if we had a limited number of just five special forces embedded with an iraqi battalion of 600 that that can make give confidence to that battalion, help improve their morale and help them be more effective on the battlefield? >> senator, it's been my experience when u.s. forces have accompanied iraqis or for that

matter my experience in afghanistan that this unit are more effective. >> well general dempsey said he is not yet recommended that we embed a limited company very small number of such forces in the iraqi army. he would do so if he thought it was appropriate. don't you think it's time for us to maybe move from being in baghdad in headquarters, and actually move out to provide this kind of confidence, the air cover, the direction of munitions giving confidence of resupply and american commitment quest isn't it time for us to move forward in that direction? >> senator, without appearing to be evasive whatever they would like to do ism if confirmed have the opportunity to the ground, speak to the commanders and provide more comprehensive recommendation that we can do the camping vote in iraq without focusing on one or other of the

factors. >> i will help you do that quickly. just one more thing. senator mccain wardy yesterday that we could be facing the same situation that he warned about iraq in 2011 when we pulled out prematurely. and now we are going to be facing this decision in afghanistan. and i hope that you will be clear and firm in your recommendation to the president if he believed this plan we have today, state specific withdrawal is in error and hope you will do that. will you do so if you think it's an air? >> i will do that, senator. >> thank you. >> senator mccaskill. >> thank you. my good friend and colleague senator session and i've worked together on matters of fiscal accountability and trying to spend less money but i different take than he does on where we are in terms of the military budget. i can't figure any reason why we would be putting the $40 billion increase into the war fund

instead of into the base budget. i can think any reason to do that other than want of misleading the american people about whether not we are balancing something. because that's a place i can put money and not have to pay for it. so they put it there so didn't have to be paid for. and completely shortchanged national security for our country and form of cybersecurity port city airport security fbi, cia, all of which i know you would acknowledge is a very important part of the role of keeping america safe. would you agree with that? >> senator, i would absolutely agree all those organizations play an inextricable role in keeping us safe. >> let's make very clear if, in fact, we go down this path of pretending were bouncing something by -- we don't have to pay for, will, in fact, the oco funds or the war funds as i like to call them will they do anything to avoid the force

structure cuts that are looming across our nation if we did not get off of this path of misleading the american people about what we are balancing? >> senator, i think all the service chiefs who have to balance a budget would prefer them and to be in the base budget because that provide a degree of predictability that we can get after the two main issues that we are to deal with. one is modernization of force and the other is to get the readiness back to a level we are comfortable with. >> the cuts we've seen this week, they are a drop in a bucket as to what's coming if we continue on this bizarre idea of putting all of this money in the war fund as opposed in the base budget were forced strength belongs, direct? >> if the budget level goes below what's been requested in the present budget 16 there will be significant additional cuts made. >> thank you. enough hardware all work on the proper sexual assault and military. i'm pleased the incidents are down. i am pleased that reporting is

up. i am pleased that the efforts that are being made to measure victim satisfaction with command look good. i think it's too early to tell declare success. we have a lot more work to do but the problem that remains and one that i really want to make sure you have the top of your list is retaliation. i know there have been initiatives begun but i would like to see a written plan from u.s. chairman of the joint chiefs with all of the chiefs signed off on. what is your path to getting active -- the problem is not based on a survey. the problem is primarily lower level command unit command and. to peer. not that there may not be some outliers there but that's the bulk of the problem. that's a culture issue and that means from the top. i'm disappointed we haven't had more prosecutions of retaliation as a cry. i know it's a new.

kind of people might be very reluctant to bring some up on those charges because of what that might mean within the unit but that's where you guys coming. i would like a commitment that youyou would be willing to put a plan in writing that we could follow. >> senator, i would make a commitment. i think you identified. retaliation as the real issue we're trying to grapple with in the wake of the report. i can assure you leadership across the department has been catholic in addition an effort to set the right climate for retaliation is unacceptable. >> i will put a question for the record about the unused the report sagar report card out and consider another was investigation -- sigar. you of course were not found to be a problem in this budget is a problem the investigation found no problem and in reality it was a huge problem so we set off on a building for 64 $36 million that's never going to be used and is sitting empty of accounting which we avoid that. my final question is if you have

-- if you don't have time to do it now i want to be tricky to take on isis in afghanistan. i know they're trying to move everywhere eric this is a shia-sunni issue and that is something that is prevalent throughout the region and with your experience in afghanistan are you comfortable that we have a handle on what isis is trying to do in afghanistan and? >> what i know from general general campbell's reports and intelligence is we've seen a number of taliban rebranded themselves as isis but beyond that i don't have a good feel at this time for the depth of the problem but sort would be one of the issues i would look into if confirmed. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> general dunford i think you are just the men for the java let me tell you got a lot of crises to preside over i would ask you, during the course of your term in office tell us what you need your come back and be honest, tell us what our men and

women in uniform need to succeed to get the job done. i don't think we're quite there. i was privileged to lead a bipartisan delegation of house and senate members over the past week the ukraine. we met with president portion go and he is grateful for the $300 billion that this government provided in military assistance during the past year. he also mentioned the need for antitank missiles. i think your testimony earlier today is that that is a resort course on the part of the president of ukraine and it will be necessary for him to get those in order for them to defend his country. was that your testimony? >> senator it was. from in the perspective those kinds of capabilities in my judgment would be mr. for him to be able to do with russian aggression other separatism issue is dealing with in ukraine. >> separatist that are part by the russian hierarchy.

would you also agree it's unacceptable that this much transfer of humvees to ukraine took over a year to process due to bureaucratic delays at dod and state? >> if it took a year to do that would be unacceptable. i'm not personally aware of the issue. >> look into that force. i also led the delegation to helsinki where the osce parliamentary assembly. before the delegation left before the russian delegation left en masse because of a dispute over five delegates of being on the uae eu sanctions list. the head of the delegation nikolai, said that russia's neighbors are russia's neighbors have no reason to be threatened by russia. now, of course, russia has

mr. putin under mr. putin's leadership, russia has twice invaded its neighbors georgia in 2008 ukraine last year. we see neither is the russian official investigating the legality of mr. khrushchev's transfer of crimea back in the day saying that this perhaps was an invasion because of crimea was never legally transferred to ukraine by the russian federation. it concerns me that this same official is now investigating whether the transfer of the baltic states whether getting of independence through the baltic states latte with a wink and estonia, perhaps that was illegal at all, this russian official suggests. we can get to the issue is whether i just want to ask you this about our native commitment

commitment. i can envision a situation where there are small jurisdictions within lafayette that the majority of russian speakers. 's -- lafayette. small jurisdictions within estonia that have a majority of russian speakers. and a pretext is created at that point. i realize i'm posting something to that's hypothetical but in light of pronouncements from officials in the russian federation, i think it's something to be concerned about. we need a great a tripwire in the baltics and that is a tripwire should communicate clearly to russia that nato will not tolerate violations of the territorial integrity of our allies. what do you think of this idea?

can you highlight to this committee this to dod needs to take under your leadership to send a credible message that this sort of pretext by the russian federation would absolutely not be tolerated by the united states and our nato allies speak with trent lott i think our experience in ukraine and the other examples you used highlights the fact we need to update our deterrence and response model to deal with the kind of threat we have today which has been described as a hybrid threat from russia which combines political instrument, unconventional warfare as well as support for separatist in these countries and quite frankly that needs to be a pretty good you're asking which of the department do. we frankly need an effective deterrent model for the 21st century to deal with the kind of threats that we are now seeing in russia because quite frankly i think that kind of asymmetric threat is one will continue to see in the future. we will continue to see that in the european context. >> would an incursion of russian

troops or russian backed separatist troops in small jurisdictions of russian speaking majorities within latvian and estonian, with a completely unacceptable to discover? >> from a policy perspective i can't answer that. from a personal perspective it sort of looks like a violation of salford to me. >> -- sovereignty. >> in my view, are absolutely unacceptable. we need to make it clear this administration needs to make it clear, this congress needs to make it clear that we will do what is necessary to prevent this sort of idea from ever being considered in the first place. >> senator, i agree and i think this also applies to the cyberthreat as well. the idea of deterrence in response to a changing threat of the 21st century and i think we need to update our models for

both. >> senator manchin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, general, for your service and your families dedication and sacrifice they made with you. i know -- you've had the opportunity -- [inaudible] and what our threats are today. what would you consider the greatest threat to our national security? >> my ss and today is the russia presents the greatest threat to our national security. >> -- might assessment today. >> would you want to elaborate on that? >> in russia we have a nuclear power. we have won that battle has the capability to violate the sovereignty of our allies and to do things that are inconsistent with our national interest but they are in the process of doing so. so you want to talk about a nation that could pose an existential threat to the united states i would have to point to russia. if you look at their behavior is nothing short of alarming.

>> when you basically, and i've been very much concerned about the same issue. i think we talked about it briefly before when you visit my office, but we have, i've been told by major scholars of the cold war is colder today than it was when it was declared because of a lack of communications, a lack of interest party affiliations. define that to be true and can you change the course in your new position? >> senator, certainly the relationship with russia a few years ago if you recall we actually were included in nato meetings and so forth and those kinds of exchanges have stopped. from my perspective may well would be even as the relationship this challenge and with the difficulties we face right now i think it's a port we attempt to maintain a military to military relationship with the russian counterparts to the extent possible to mitigate the risk of miscalculation and begin to turn the trend in the other

direction in terms of trust. >> also going back to iraq spoken about previously, but could you find yourself at sometimesometime recommended to the president for three-state solution in iraq instead of staying the course of the united iraqi government? >> from my perspective i can imagine few states in iraq. i have difficulty imagining a third separate state given the lack of resources that would be agreeable to the sunnis and, frankly, i think if it was third without a federal government i think would have some difficulty the same difficult meant to be exacerbated by the fact that the central government. >> basically you are acknowledging the kurds are strong prepared, ready to go if they were given the opportunity to? >> senator, again public out of my lane to talk about what he or position of iraq may be in the future but i think i'm just a pure economic resources and

governance perspectives that the shia and the kurds are certainly much more equipped to set up a separate state than the sunnis would be at this time. >> i know it's been spoken about also the mistake of us leaving iraq with our troops out when we did -- pulling our troops that we did. did we have an option to stay? >> senator, i was not involved in discussion at the time to the assessment at the time was we did not have an option to stay. >> so basically those of us who believe that maybe there could have been some forces left it there or basically the valuation of maliki wasn't doing his job, once we went down the path of democracy, we didn't have the option to go back and say that? >> given what we were demanded of the iraqis they were not meeting our demands. i wish i would say that meant we had the option to stay. >> i've spoken many times about the lack of an audit that we

don't audit as a pentagon defense. the marines have made an effort i will say they make more of an effort to any other branch of the military to do an audit but it has put the filter what would you a commitment before us have an audit especially for us to know about our contractors, how much we spent a contractors, how many contract forces we have done the job that i believe me our military and definitely our national guard could be supported in that effort that we are not doing to make? >> senator, we can't be as effective. recently cannot be efficient with the taxpayers dollars if we don't have an effective audit. as you alluded to we work up her yard in the marine corps. corps. i worked about as assistant commandant again over the last year as the comment on. we did make significant amount of progress. we were able to get to the point where we could internally audit all of the resources that were directly under the cognizance of the marine corps which -- with some database challenges outside. i can assure you if confirmed

you have my commitment to continue to press hard in that direction and to support the efforts across the department of which we can come to you with a clean audit. audit. >> i didn't want to thank you get you have my support, and i think the confidence of the american people, definitely the west virginians. >> senator ayotte. >> general, i just want to thank you for all that you've done for the country and think you'll do a tremendous job as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. and i want to thank your family for what they've done for the country. and continue to do. we appreciate it. i wanted to also add my support to what senator mccaskill said about the issue of retaliation or i think this is an important issue as we focus on the work that we've done in this committee to eliminate and work to prevent sexual assault in the military and to support of victims and hold the perpetrators accountable. so i think that's actually. i look forward to seeing that proposal from you. i wanted to ask about the

situation as you look at iran and their support for regional tourism. how would you assess iran's current activities and where they are engaging in support either directly or through proxies for efforts that are undermining security in the region? >> senator, iran is clearly in the line of the most destabilizing element in the middle east today. they're providing support to the houthis. they provide support, hezbollah is a clear line of influence in lebanon. there's indications that are involved in syria and certainly they are involved in trying to expand their influence into iraq and they're creating their exacerbated at least the sunni-shia sectarianism across the region. >> i want to follow more on that but also want to ask you can also report that they were also engaged in supporting the taliban in afghanistan more now.

is there anything you can share of that? >> i've seen those same reports and from my perspective what i've seen in the reports is not have provided some support to the taliban in an effort to counter isil. >> deeply, you think about your experience, i know you deep commanded troops in iraq but certainly iran has the blood of american soldiers on its hands for what the explosives come explosive because they provided to the shia militias in iraq that killed many of our men and women in uniform. so do you think as we look at the situation in iraq and what's happening with the shia militias you refer to how could they be maligned influence in the longer-term solution in iraq? >> senator, the clerk could be maligned influence which is why i believe we should not provide any support to those forces

unless they directly under the iraqi government and not provide support by the iranians. >> thank you. i wanted to also ask you about the situation on cyber. because the fbi director and we received briefings on the opm reached by the fbi director says he believes it's an enormous breach. millions and millions of individuals who provided background information have been breached at director clapper has said that they believe it's the chinese who have done this reach. what do you think we should become one of the get the threats facing our nation, how great you think the cyberthreat is? and also how would you assess our current posture with the chinese and we should be addressing this situation? >> i would agree with you. the cyberthreat is clearly very significant and, frankly, every week we learned a bit more about

the opm breach. whenever one concern is for the data and the well being of the men and women whose data that is, having been compromised. one of the challenges is of course attribution. but for my perspective if confirmed my role will be to provide the president with a full range of options to deal with these cyber attacks which is what the opm breach was. >> so i know that senator manchin had asked you what you believe our greatest national security threat was and you identified russia come and sort of weird seeing this aggression by putting and russia that certainly invading other countries essentially, but what is it as you look at the national security situation as you think an immediate threat to the country what keeps you up at night the most? >> what keeps me up at night the most is our ability to respond

to the uncertainty. i'm very confident, very confident in the joint force today at a capabilities and capacity to do with the challenges we have today. we need improvement in cyber, other capabilities but on balance the force we have is able to do with the challenges that window. there's a little residual capacity and this is the issue that's been discussed many times before this committee at that you've had some personal engagement on it's the readiness to respond to the uncertain thank you they up at night as a service chief and one of giving up at night were i to be confirmed as the chairman. >> thank you. >> senator gillibrand. >> thank you, mr. chairman and ranking of a. this evening. thank you general dunford, for your service. i'm grateful for your wife and children being here with you. we all know you have served together. i want to continue along the line that senator ayotte started with with iran. we are expecting a potential nuclear agreement between p5+1 as early as today.

are you concerned that lifting sanctions on iran might allow that country to invest more money in terrorist activities in the middle east? what do we need to do to address those concerns? >> there's no question that sign and agree what changed the dynamic in the middle east and the first thing i guess i would say is if confirmed i know i would have responsibly to develop options to present to do with the changing dynamic. with regard to increase resources for maligned activity i think it's recent to assume that if sanctions are lifted their brains would have more money available for maligned activities but i would probably say regardless of whether there's an agreement or not my expectation is that iran will continue to maligned activity across the middle east and we've seen over the past several years. >> i also want to continue the line certified senator mccaskill about retaliation. senator mccaskill was correct when she said to something with all very concerned about and she said it's not just peer-to-peer. she mentioned the unit commanders. i want to be specific about this

issue so you know the problem you're dealing with. of 53% was peer-to-peer retaliation but 35% was adverse administrative action. 32% was professional retaliation and 11% was punishment for an infraction or even to recognize some of this retaliation is in perceived by survivors to be done by jenny commanders were some within the chain of command. because administered retaliation for perceived administration retaliation or professional retaliation is serious. there's a climate issue that the chain of command is responsible for a particular unit commanders at lower level commanders that is not getting the right message. in fact, the recent survey said that 60% of women who said they experienced sexual discrimination or some kind of

negative behavior came from their commanders, their unit commanders. so you have to recognize there's a climate issue that is not being adequately addressed. so when you do your report for this committee i would like to look at that issue as well. he also had the challenge in the reported cases, one in seven of the perpetrators who are alleged to have committed rape, sexual assault or unwanted sexual conduct was also in the chain of command. you have a chat with lower level commanders that is not getting interest that i'd like your report to cover as well. somewhat related i want to talk about combat integration. i strongly believe that we should have standards that meet the needs of each position and then for anyone in the meets those standards to compete. you have not been very vocal on this issue but if confirmed he will be one of those individuals who are advising the secretary of defense about whether the service should receive any exceptions to policy.

do you expect the services especially the marines to ask for exceptions? >> senator, am not able to add to that question quite a bit and i can just ask when the process of the marine corps. we look at this issue pretty hard because you we put together a task force that is just completed. i expect the data that we've collected over the past 18 months in a very deliberate responsible way to be available to me in the august, september time frame and we'll meet the timeline established by secretary panetta and general dempsey in a letter from 2012. >> what do you think, or we be looking across the services to see if one ask for for exceptions in position as a public company the surface doesn't request for an exception for? will you be doing a comparison? >> senator, might think of what it will work now and again if confirmed soon as the chairman is all have a responsibly to look at each one of the request on its own merits and make

recommendation asset a defense. >> with my remaining 30 seconds of what to address cyber. we are constantly being confronted by our need for a capable cyber force cybercom and the services have been building out those capabilities but they are still -- there's still work to be done. what should be the role of the reserve component? >> senator, i envisioned the force as you mentioned companies going to grow and i would support the plans that at the rogers everything is before the committee, i think it's heading in the right path of going to cyber force. the reserve to put will be very important in many cases and certainly the service chief look at the some of the skill sets that are unique to cyber off able to us in the reserve for me they got a way to maximize leverage those capabilities. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator fischer? >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you general dunford for your minis years of service to

this country and and and women under your command. like to also thank your family, your wife your son is present today, and your niece who is here today. so thank you sir. i was pleased to see that you listed modernizing the nuclear enterprise among the top challenges that you can expect to face in your response to the committee's advanced questions. he also described a nuclear deterrent as the nation's top military priority. do you believe it's critical that we maintain a full tryout of our delivery vehicles? >> senator, given the nature of the threat today i do believe that spirit and to support bomber leg of of the triad is our with both gravity bombs and the cruise missile? >> i do senator. >> and the gravity bombs agenda at the cruise missiles are entirely different capabilities. and so one doesn't make the of the redundant. is that correct? >> it is. by understanding the issue is

that adds a degree of complexity and gives us greater assurance of being able to deliver should that be required. >> great, thank you. as you know modernization has been delayed and deferred for some time and we are now to the point where the light of the delivery systems can be extended any further. as deputy secretary could recite the choice is modernizing a losing deterrent capability in the '20s and '30s. some have argued these bills are simply too large and we can't afford to retain our nuclear deterrent. but according to the department calculation at its peak the nuclear mission would be about 7% of the nuclear budget. i think it's a little confusing when we hear about our deterrent described as unaffordable. had to be the alternative, letting the deterrent age out that has the unaffordable cost

to us. do you have any thoughts on that? >> senator, i would say i would pose the question from some people ask whether we can afford it. i would love to a reference at that we need to think about how we will find it. it's a capability that is required. we have identified that as the number one capabilities that we need to protect the nation in nuclear weapons certainly create an existential threat. it's a question more of how do we worked together before to fund this as it was whether not we can afford to do it spent 7% of the budget at its peak though, and being the number one priority, shouldn't that be what we find first? >> senator, frankly it's more complicated to me than that and i've some experience with that inside the department of the navy when i look at the ohio class replace as an example in which we do depressurize the shipbuilding account we would have to make difficult decisions inside the department. and so while it's clear that's the priority, it's not an issue of exclusivity.

so balance capability is what the joint force needs as i think we need to approach it from that perspective. >> fair enough. i also appreciate the connection that you may between the modernization and the reductions to the heads of are not deployed weapons. i think that this linkage is often overlooked and i think it's based on simple logic. if you have a modern stockpile and you have a response it and for structure, you don't need to keep as many spares. i think you are more insulated as well from what's happening in the world. you are more insulated from those surprises and also from technical failures. but to be clear, deeply that it would be premature to make any significant changes to the hedge before we have a modern stockpile? and before we have a responsive

infrastructure? [inaudible] spent my understanding at this time from the prefixes that would be the most prudent course for us to take. >> thank you, sir. with respect to further nuclear arms reduction. do you believe that any reductions below the new start force levels must be achieved through a negotiated treaty? and also be verifiable? >> id. i do without to take unilateral action in that regard. >> should not strategic nuclear weapons be included as well? >> senator, i'd like to take that particular question for the record. >> thank you. and they agreed that any arms control negotiations must take into account russia's current behavior especially comply circuit emulation at the beginning to feel that rush is our greatest threat. >> i do, senator. >> thank you sir. >> senator donnelly.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. and i want to also thank general dempsey in a summit for everything they've done for the country. general dunford, you and your family, thank you very very much for stepping up to the plate that we are really in your debt. as you know and we've discussed in the past, i believe one of the greatest threats to our troops is when they find themselves in a personal place where they start to think about something like suicide. we lost over 400 young men and women in the past year and i know you have worked very hard in this area to get to a lot of rigorous screening in the marine corps. will you have that same screening used across the branches when you look at recruits and early on in their careers the? >> one of the thoughts i had as a service chief was to ensure that once we identified a better way to screen and identify people at risk and take appropriate action that we were sure that as best practices across the services. i would look to facilitate that

if confirmed. >> the other question i would ask in this area is a lot of times and talking to the parents there's been a stigma for the young men and women to seek help. i know that you are committed to removing the stigma. are we going to make sure that everybody knows it's inside the strength to try to get some help to talk to somebody as opposed to any weakness. >> absolutely. and although this is one of those areas where you'd never complacent come you never satisfied with where you are but what i would take is this. i believe over the past five for seven years the issue of stigma as an associate with the suicide has changed dramatically even the way we do with found in the wake of suicide. everything to where we were a decade ago is completely different. i do think the command climate is much more receptive to somebody today seeking help that it was in the past to making sure that health is accessible and more appropriate anonymous. but again i'm not suggesting that we are satisfied with where we are by deeply we've made a

lot of progress in that particular regard. >> thank you. last week with a triplet but senator kaine. we went to iraq. and met with a number of our forces there, some of the leadership. in one of the greatest concerns was the iraqi troops, when you look at the number of isis fighters compared to the iraqi troops, it was a very sparse number of isis fighters but they wanted to sheikh iraqis turned and left. i know that has to be focus. the leadership of iraqi forces. i'm going to send a message that the only way through ramadi is through ramadi that there's no back door anymore in these kinds efforts? >> center a candidate on the grammar resilient than me and leavebelieve talk to commanders that i did have an opportunity to listen to the agility of it and i've seen the plan. i think they had made it clear that the iraqi secretive forces how important ramadi is a bit

more toward the last couple of months to set the conditions for the iraqis to be successful. it probably is one of the issues were it's a tactical action to go back in but there's a question in my mind from information operations perspective africa command perception campaign it's a strategic action at the iraqis understand that spee-1 for the other groups we met with and they know the marines have shed so much blood and treasure in anbar province over the past years. we met with a lot of the sunni tribal leaders and they said look, we are still united with you but we need to know that you are in this. and then to read chanteuse secretary carter one of the members said we have people eating grass their work with the united states there is no milk for the children

reach the age you to help with the humanitarian crisis. so not only do we have to win the battle but reacquire the hearts and minds if you do we will move the folks out. >> but then to develop relationships of the anbar prophesy could not agree more that their confidence and trust will have an impact not only from a military perspective but from the willingness to support us. >> appears the plan we have is no plan. we talked about a buffer zone with a river is saudi arabia with chairman retain to have a no-fly zone.

to be in search of a plan so we hear that then to see a race between isis to take over the rest of the country which is a very rare scenario. so this is a challenging position and it will change quickly we had best be prepared anb ahead of it or the entire country will be gone when we look up. third. >> thank you for your years of service also to your wife prepare you said russia is the greatest threat i take it that is because they have

a nuclear capability tura destroyed unit of states? >> combined with the recent behavior. >> give that russia with the intermediate forces treaty to believe the united states should consider withdrawing from the treaty? >> of the by to take that for the record. as it currently stands is fresher violates the treaty that means united states is the of the country to develop but the president currently has a proposal with the country's not just the capability but also to put stress on the alliance.

i find that someone underwhelming to station troops pinned in those countries. as part of the of wide range of activities is to have the infrastructure in the other is to preposition equipment the and the other is rotational forces his secretary carter announced the one month ago. >> now moving into iran under eddie such agreement to get billions and billions of dollars higher do expect that? >> there are two challenges as a result of the economy.

>> so you believe that these part of that supports like has the law -- has blood or yemen or the shia militia in iraq? >> does united states have a military capability to destroy the iran nuclear program? >> it is my understanding that we do. >> serving in iraq and afghanistan do you know how many soldiers or marines under your command were killed by iranian activities >> i know the total number that were killed by iranian activities it was quoted as 500. we cannot always attribute the casualty's we suspect it was a radioactivity although we did not have the forensics to support that.

>> but we suspect those killed in action even more wounded. you have a reputation to be thoughtful with service members will reduce say if there were killed by renewed activity if they make a nuclear agreement before they change their behavior in the region? >> and if confirmed but i will make sure that leadership has a full range of military options to deal with the renewed activity. >> your nickname is fighting joe? [laughter] >> it is not one that i used. >> one that has been given to you? >> perhaps by my wife. [laughter] >> would you perhaps tell us

the origin? >> i prefer to talk about that in private. >> cry heard it is as an infantry officer in the early days and given whatever budget agreement we reached it is inadequate of the long-term modernization needs with of bomber and are you worried about the next generation of infantry bin that we take major capital investment? >> it is broader there in the infantry peace we need a balanced inventory of capabilities to be successful. with a is a question with you say what kept me up at night did the to respond and

and what concerns me are people who know what the future looks like so to have a full range is the prudent thing to you do. >> a think we put ground forces into the balkans is somalia and afghanistan and even if you don't want to be called friday and show you a book of for all of those in the of marine corps. >> the senator from arkansas clearly got his nickname. >> general dunford with the

recent announcement of march visor's going into the anti-isil mission in iraq and syria to figure out how to serve abroad in the battle. and then to deduct ground strikes. today's ago general dempsey was your justify he believes in the mission of the complexity ensouled for the disease to defeat isil will they be received positively from the troops with congress would have a debate and affirm the west mission against isil? >> it is all vague that have

purpose in a demeaning. and then it is the unmistakable message to the allies but with respect to the anti-isil effort to talk about when senator reid was talking about the couple of the government encroachment just for the record i should know these support effective governance and iraq, it denies safe haven, a building partner capacity capacity, and hinting intelligence on isil, a disrupting isil finances, exposing the nature and disrupting flow of foreign fighters in to protect their homeland a and humanitarian support. that is with the building partner capacity to have a

piece of the others in a given the fact that these items are not dod but with significantly hurt the other that is critical to defeating isil. >> i would like to talk about the relationship retrieve the to because it highlights the issue. from my perspective to go on record right now ainge for i don't know how we could have been during success but with those military lines of never will set the conditions and without the

game properly resource. with iraq than syria but then to have an enduring stability in the region once and for all. >> so to fix the sequester for defense that is all we need to do with the non-defense investments in 100 senators are now on record by voting for with public statements and with non-defense accounts in my hope we can do that.

>> and with the opposition first raised in september senator mccain raised the question is a free-trade foes to fight isil and they are attacked by assad regime would we protect them he asked again yesterday so by my count that is nine months without a clear in answer. we were told in theater last referrals other engagements still would prohibit u.s. effort to support u.s. trade isil fire if they become under attack by have asked questions for the record and i like to know if that is the policy if dod intends to change the policy and will day and what do we need to do because i do not believe we should be sending u.s. trade and people into a theatre of war without a guarantee they will be

protected those will be record question is for the hearing but i want to let you know, those are coming and it is a very important matter >> thank you, mr. chairman. general, ms. dunford, i want to thank you for your service to the country, taking on this new responsibility. i know that marines all over the country whether in active duty or retired take great pride in the fact you only the second marine ever nominated for this post. i know your career has example find the values of honor courage and commitment that the values of the marine corps and i plan on voting for you with enthusiasm and encourage my colleagues to do so as well. i look forward to seeing you tomorrow night at the parade. i would ask two questions about the military relationship with the congress, even though your role will be principal advisor to the president. first in the area of force posture, this committee ways in

the ndaa and other names on key force posture issues, number of ships, racing of troops aircraft. .. troops, aircraft, how important is it the military following the defense guidance? >> it is very important given how explicit it is with the responsibilities of the congress. >> i will provide examples note to the chairman the number of aircraft carriers passed unanimously through the committee to vote on the senate floor and you say don't know much about the navy anymore. is that an appropriate role for the military? >> if congress passes a law, senator, it would not be appropriate to ignore it. >> how about an amendment that

says it is the sense of congress in support of the president's rebalance in the asia pacific straight to increase forces. is it appropriate to ignore that? >> obviously congress ought to inform -- >> there is a recent amendment that says exactly that. let me provide a second area we talked about in terms of emerging threats. sometimes the department of defense civilian and military officials miss certain threats because there are so many out there. let me provide an example of one everybody seems to be focused on except the exception of the department of defense. news week had a cover story on what they call the race to control the arctic the u.s. lags

behind. it talks about how this is the world's newest great game kiplings term for major power to dominate the remote but strategic places and talks about russia moving into the arctic and serious military exercises and whether it is the coast guard or secretary of defense saying this new go-political cold war the u.s. is in danger of loosing we are not in the same league as the russians or even playing the game at all. i think it is safe to say the department of defense there is a military strategy given the threat levels and an old plan for the arctic based on the increase interest and threats.

does it make sense to cut any of america's limited number of cold weather trained warriors in the arctic before this congressionally mandated strategy is completed? >> senator, i guess i am not sure which forces are you are alluding to. >> there is only certain forces in the arctic. they are all in alaska right now. >> sir, i would like to take that for the record. i am not aware of the full range of decisions being made right now and watt the implications are. >> general, i think it is important to recognize it is hard to figure out appropriate force levels and capabilities in the arctic without having a plan. we are mandated the desire and need for a man and i think we are getting a little bit of the cart before the horse cutting forces before knowing the plan. we certainly recognize there is an increase threat and we hope the dod recognizes it as well.

>> senator, if confirmed, i know i had conversations with the coast guard and naval operations about the arctic and we will develop an appropriate role for the military in support of economic and political interest in the arctic. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your service, general dunford. i wanted to pick up briefly on the issue of sexual trauma in the military and concerns about retaliation. i think you had noted that you determined the root causes and continue to work into insure the culture does not support the retaliation and i would ask you to have a sense of urgency when

responding to the community on how you will address this issue. it is important our troops morale remain same and there is cohesion and that can not exist if someone of your troops are encountering sexual assault and harassment and retaliation. just wanted to make that point. could you share briefly you view on the rebalance to the asia-pacific. >> sure i can. it is absolutely critically we do that given the demographics and economic future. that is going to require us to modernize our alliance and i think you have seen progress in that regard. our relationship south korea, japan, vietnam, australia have all been adjusted. we are engagement in the pacific

to provide a stabilizing presence. the most important thing is it provides a secure infrastructure and we can advance our interest. i think it is designed to modernize the infrastructure. >> i just got information on the cuts that will happen to pay com as a result of the budget necessities and i am glad to know that general ode did say the cuts were regard to the import importance of the rebalance and woe want to make sure and senator sullivan shares this with me the rebalance to the asia pacific is remaining a strong commitment on our part.

where does isis china and north korea fall with regard to national security dangers? >> if i had to rack it i had russia down as number one. i would have china down as two. >> can you explain why briefly? >> russia because of the nuclear capability and their aggression. china because of their growing military capability and presence in the pacific and our interest in the pacific. a relationship between their capabilities and our interest. doesn't mean they are a current threat or china is an enemy but i get paid to look at intent and capability and chinese capabilities relative to our in the in the pacific china is an area of concern from security different from a threat. north korea, clearly with ballistic missile capability and the potential to reach the united states and attack the homeland is high enough on the

list and then isis. but senator, i want to make it clear as i go down the list and prioritize i don't view that meaning we can attack those issues in sequence or priority of one at the expense of the other is something we would have to do at this particular time. all four of those security issues are ones that require the department to look at and create a challenge that needs to be addressed. >> and that is why it is complicated times. i would like to focus on the lay down in the pacific. i am aware of the population in japan and their leadership's desire to halt construction of the replacement facility. can you characterize the relationship and challenges for relocating our forces from and within japan? that is very much a part of the rebalance we are committed to. >> senator, thanks.

i recently did visit japan. i was encouraged by my visit. i met with a number of senior leaders and received nothing but their full commitment to continue with the replace plan. the japanese government is committed to that and recognize it is important for us to continue with the preferred laydown you alluded to. my sense is our relationship with the japanese and their state of commitment we are in a good place with regard to the september replacement facility. >> do you view the situation as mainly a concern that should be dealt with within japan and their government? >> senator, we and i specifically now talk about the marines, we need to be good neighbors and set the conditions for a positive relationship with the people but at the end of the day the issue of the replacement facility is an internal japanese

situation that has to be worked by the japanese government. >> general dunford, welcome to you and your family. in your written testimony you state as senator fischer pointed out our nuclear deterant is the military's top priority and that leads to questions on how we plan for that priority over time. the health of the complex is critical to your nuclear deterant and one of the things you wrote in the written testimony is that we must recruit and train our next generation workforce capable of certifying stock pile requirements and modernize the nuclear weapons infrastructure. can you share your thoughts specifically on laboratory directed research and development and the life extension programs that are

going on at our national labs and their role in achieving recruitment and retention of that next generation nuclear workforce. >> senator, that is an area i have thought developed any level of expertise and i would like to take it for the record. >> that is fine. i look forward to engageing on that in the future with you. i think it is important in how we manage the lab and things that bring people to the pipeline and they stay in these positions and rise up and provide the continuity it will take to determine what we need. i want to focus on the challenges here at home. in my view defense innovation is moving too slowly.

often cycles that last years and commercial can be measured in months. this committee authorized funding half directed for directed energy to accelerate the fielding of important technologies including in addition to directed energy things like low cost emissions, cyber improvement, and intelligence data analytics. what role do you think the development of technologies like robotics and directed energy will play in our security posture? and what steps should we tyke take to develop systems more quickly? >> if i am confirmed i view the future of the joint force being a critical responsibility and a key piece is keeping a pace with

innovation so we get better at what we are doing today and find different ways to do things in the future that are more effective and maintain the competitive advantage. i think what you are outlining is an area of concern for me. our efforts in innovation were at a lower priority and we have tried to give that maernl energy over the past year. >> one other challenge at home is the air force remotely piloted aircraft field is under severe strain largely through increased combatant commander requirements, in sufficient paulpaulacy levels and the fact the airforce is loosing more pilots in this context than training.

we have been assured they are dedicated to fixing the shortfall but i want your commitment you will make this a priority if confirmed. >> senator, those men and women in that field is a core capability of the joint force. and their affectiveness, morale willingness to continue commit. i will make sure those individuals are appreciated and have a climate they want to remain airman. >> i appreciate that deeply. i can it is an area where we are seeing severe strains and where folks need our support. so thank you. >> good morning, general

dunford, thank you for your service and your family long time serving our nation. i leaned over to senator sullivan during some of your comments and thoroughly appreciate your precise answers tothe questions. i would like to build on a question senator session asked having to do with using o-co as a way of spending and we know that is not the best way to do it primarily for it lack of long term certainty. my question to you is have you given thought to how you could potentially use this funding, although it is not long-term commitment commitment, take to the edge off

sequestration sequestration. >> we started looking and it would require a change in the rules for us to be able to do that. if you applied or gave so-co given the current rules we would not be able to use much. much of the level in 2016 was focused on modernization. that is in addition to readiness is what has suffered the most. so we have looked at it. >> will you bow making specific recommendations for things we need to look at to get the most productivity out of it. >> i will certainly do that. >> thank you. i wanted to go back to questions asked about afghanistan and iraq. i visited both countries and spoke with a number of people while there. it seems like in afghanistan we

have the right mix. we have them in the right roles and the afghanistan people have proven they can fight successfully. in iraq i understand what you said about the political decisions of the past causing problems and that issues have to be addressed. have you given thought to assuming you get to the point where you have the right command infrastructure among the iraqis and what we may need to actually create a creditable, trained, effective fights force for the iraqis beyond the 3,000 currently present troops? >> senator, i can address that in terms of the ability to develop combine arms and develop institutional training and the development of the capacity to support high level forces but it has been a few years since i have been on the ground in iraq and i would like to take the opportunity if confirmed to

visit iraq, talk to commanders and develop a recommendation that would help us to move the campaign forward. >> on the flip side i know the afghanistan people have made a lot of progress but i think they still rely on us heavily for train and assist roles for the capabilities in the region. i know that i have heard you say we cannot have a calendar base approached toward reduction in forces but just the sense that i got when i was in kabul was those who are very much in touch with the situation on the ground think it would be a bad idea to reduce our current presence over the near time and i assume they are looking to 12 months ahead saying we will not be at a place where the afghanistan people can be independent. do you share that view?

>> the assumption we made in a recommendation delivered in 2013 so it is 19 months ago and some of the assumptioned affects the time line. we didn't expect as much of a delay in the election process of 2014. that was a great distraction. when i was on the ground, it was hard to get counterparts to focus on the practical side when they were involved in a real challenge of providing security to the elections so it delayed our efforts in growing. there have been other areas where we made assumptions about things that could be done but we did about get down during that window. another area i would talk to general campbell if confirmed immediately is from a distance it makes sense the timeline we identified in 2013 as being possible has been affected by

the political events. >> thank you general dunford, and look forward to supporting your conformation. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you for your service, general, and thank you to your family who are here today for their service as well. i want to begin with what you assessed is the primary threat from russia and china and talk about a weapons platform or system that hasn't been raised to submarine force. i recognize it is not part of your background but a great responsibility if you are confirmed and i am going to strongly support your conformation as the next chairman of the joint cheifs of staff. the ohio replacement program is critical to nuclear deterance and the cost and it is said they

cannot pay for it out of its navy budget. i am wondering whether you will consider and support looking at the defense department budget as a whole to fund the ohio replacement program which i am assuming you agree is critical. >> i do agree it is critical. it is the most survival part of the triad. i am very familiar with the budget implications of the ohio class replacement on the department's long building ship plan. what i can tell you is that were we to fund the ohio class replacement from it department of navy it would have an adverse a affect on the ship building plan at two and a half to three ships a year. and we are already not where we are needing to be now. i think a broader mechanisms for

the ohio class replacement makes sense otherwise we will have pretty adverse affects on the navy and as i mentioned in the testimony one perspective coming into the role would be if confirmed we need balance and that includes a balance navy. so as important as the ohio class replacement is the united states navy in terms of the war fighting and presence they provide and many or capabilities that are critical and it would be difficult to balance that if were to be paid for with the department of navy's projected resources >> thank you for that answer. i am hoping you would agree with equal assurance that building two subs a year should continue? >> that is i defer to my chief of naval operations but that is his plan and i trust him in that

regard. >> that you can -- thank you. i know of your passionate and admirable commitment to the men and women who are our greatest assets in the united states military. their wellbeing and their welfare. i hope you can commit that you will continue the effort to cord nature cordinatcord -- accordinate better communication between the veterans hospital and those exiting. >> i support the men and women in and out of uniform. in the marine core we have an

expression once a marine always a marine and once you serve the country the support you get in return is sacred and i will continue to support the efforts to make sure that the health care transition our young men and women make when they are in uniform to the veterans administration is as seemless as possible. i think we owe them that -- seamless -- >> your predecessor general dempsey, has stated and i am quoting we have the capability to use military option if the iranians stray off the diplomatic path. my question is are you satisfied our nation as done enough for the option of all options on the table, if necessary, to use a military option there as much as we all may wish the negotiations

will succeed? >> my understanding is we have the plans and place in place to deal with iran. >> thank you. thank you very much. >> thank you mr. chairman. general dunford congratulations on your nomination and thank you for your service and leadership in the marine core. our nation is fortunate to have a military leader like you serving at a time of great peril. i want to ask a question that is the same one i asked your predecessor, general dempsey. if the objective were to destroy isis not weaken or degrade them, but utterly destroy them

within 90 days what would be required? >> my assessment is it would not be possible to destroy isis in 90 days and i don't think we can solve this with just military but i think the military aspect of the campaign is critical. >> well if the time frame i suggested is not feasible let me ask you a follow-up question. what would be required to destroy isis and what time frame is necessary? if that were the objective what would be required to accomplish that militarily? >> if confirmed i will look at the issue but my perspective is this is long-term endeavor and on the order of years not months in order to defeat or destroy isis. >> and what would be required to do that in whatever time period is necessary? >> from a military perspective,

senator, two things we are doing and need to continue is take action to deny isis sanctuary wherever it takes root and that requires us to build local forces that would be the real defeat mechanisms for isis in the respective countries. you would have to have effective governance so you had the conditions set for long-term stability where isis couldn't get traction again in the future. you had have to address the foreign financing of isis; where they get their money and the economic assets. address the movements of foreign fighters back and forth and one thing is we need to undermine the narrative of isis and discredit the narrative of isis. >> in your personal judgment are you concerned about the rules of engagement for the current use of air power that is it is overerly constraining the

effectiveness? >> senator, i am not. when we go to war we go to war with our values and conduct planning and discrimination and execution and the thing we are doing now is insuring we don't have civilian casualties and that supports our narrative and gives us the credibility to be successful long term in the campaign. >> the administration has informed congress in recent days we are arming the kurds. this is something i have called for for a long time. i spoke this week with a then senior kurdish leader who reported commanders on the ground are not confirming that. what can you tell the committee about the extent to which we are providing arms to kurds and it is getting to them rather than getting bogged down in baghdad?

>> i would agree the strongest force today is the kurds. my understanding is the issues have been addressed and they are getting the material support they need and the training they need. i will as a matter of priority go over there and visit and make my own personal assessment. >> will you commit to providing the committee with specific details in terms of what is going done to arm the kurds? >> i will do that senator. >> let me ask concerning iran. if iran were to acquire nuclear weapons what is the national security risk in your judgment to the united states? >> senator, i think it is significant particularly if the company is intercontinental. it is destabilizing in the

middle east as well and we can expect a proliferation of nuclear arms as a result. >> my final question i am concerned, general, about morale in the military. we have discussed in this hearing how the world is getter more dangerous and at the same time i think we are dramatically undermining our readiness and ability to defend the nation. the military times did a survey where in 2009 they asked soldiers whether overall the quality of life is good or excellant and 91% said yes. in 2014 the number went from 91% to 56%. they asked likewise if the senior military leadership has my best interest at heart. in 2009, 53% agreed and in 2014 it dropped to 27%. do you share the concerns about

declining morale in the military? if so what do you see is the cause of it? and the proper approach to fix it? >> with regard to the morale of the force it is one of the things that distinguishes us. we have the most capable military force in the world and that is rooted in the men and women we have in uniform. i do have concerns as a service chief about how hard we have been running our men and women over the last few years. we had a plan where we want today have a 1-3 deployed meaning they would be deployed seven months and home for 21 months allowing them to get training and with family and sustained rate of fire. many of the units are at or below a 1-2 deployment rate and deployed for seven months home

less than 14 and continue on again. that has an affect on families and our ability to train across the range of military operations. if confirmed, this is going to be one of the areas i focus on. i think have the responsibility to lead the young men and women in uniform. i have a responsibility to represent them. and that means to tell the leadership and thex executive branch what material support leadership and resources they need to remain the finest fighting force. it bothers me if they don't have confidence in their senior leadership and i can tell you that will be an issue of priority and i seek to gain the trust of the young men and women and let them know they are represented in washington, d.c. and we as leaders are asking them to do a lot and they don't ask much in return.

>> thank you, general. thank you, mr. chairman. >> hasn't sequestration bred uncertainty that leads to the drop of morale? >> there is a lot of angst in the force and a lot is driven by how big the force will be and if we will have the equipment. i think it is a factor >> senator sullivan had a follow-up question and then we will go on. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general, i want to get back to the issue of the relationship between the role of congress. let me provide a quick example.

i believe one of the core comptency the army has is large scale groups that deploy at any time in the world. do you think that is a competency? >> i do. >> it was testified here about putting troops and helicopters on ships for maneuver throughout the pacific. what services core competency would you associate that mission with? >> i would associate that with the united states marine core senator. >> so if i said that was an army general describing the new pacific pathway strategy would that surprise you? >> it would not. i have seen that in the open source. >> do you think it is redundant and a waste of taxpayers money?

>> given the shortfall, i am speaking as a service chief, i can the ripriority ought to go to the marine core. >> would it be our responsibility to make the money going to the arctic as opposed to redundant activities? >> i agree the congress has a critical role to make sure the joint capabilities and capacities we have are right sized. >> thank you for that single follow-up question. >> thank you mr. chairman. i apologize for being so late. i was in an appropation markup. general dunford, thank you and thank you to your family. after watching you before the crowd of new hampshire business folks and hearing from them how

impressed they were i look forward to the impression you will make as the new chairman of the joint chiefs. so, i wanted to follow up on senator whicker's question about europe and the concerns about europe. i returned from a trip to poland and lativa and saw the nato exercises and heard extreme concern about the potential for putin to engage as you pointed out in a cemetric situation in the baltic countries. i am concerned about the failure to date of europe to commit to the two percent of their gdp for defense spending and wonder if

you have thoughts on what more we might be able to do the courage them to anti up. >> i think it is important our nato partners share their issue of the burden. i know secretary carter and others addressed this issue of the nations meeting 2%. given the shortfalls in intelligence, defense, cyber capabilities and strategic lift it is critical for our partners to develop. i have seen this first hand from my previous assignment when our nato properties are resource correctly they can be effective for stability in europe as well as others. >> i agree and hopefully we will

see that commitment followed through on because clearly the threat from putin and russia continues and our eastern upper- european allies are very concerned about that. you talked about the deployment pressure on our military. i wonder if you could give me your perspective on the appropriate active to reserve ratio in regard to the national reserve and continuing the military mission we have in this country. >> senator, again one of the things we have to do when we talk about using the reserve and guard is balance the concerns of families with the willingness for the guard and reserve to continue to serve in a more operational and strategic sense. i mean there was a sense the guard and reserve would be used in a case of a major war.

but i think we found with the size of the military force and our commitment to the guard and reserve is more operational and they are useful and necessary on a day to day basis. but as a service chief, and i will look at the implications across the other services is about every four years is a reasonable time for major deployment. but in many cases depending on the employment individuals can be available on a more routine. but whole units one year deployment and mobilization and four years back focused on their families and employers seems to be sustainable. but again, if i am confirmed i will consult with the appropriate leadership in the guard and reserve to make sure i have a full appreciation for their challenge and the other service chiefs >> thank you. we have seen in new hampshire the significant contribution of the guard and the integration particularly with the air

refueling of active duty and guard and providing that mission so i think it is very important. let me ask you if you would commit to two things. in 2013, department announced the elimination of the direct combat exclusion policy and announced plans to fully integrate more women into the all occupational fields and i hope you will continue that eft and see it through. women are making up a greater percentage of the military these days and making sure they have the ability to compete in all areas i think is significant. the other question i noticed this week that the navy announced they have tripled the mu maternity leave policy for women in the navy and i would ask you to consider extending that to all branches of the military. as women are making up more

troops it is important to address the issues the family issues they have and maternity leave is a big part of that. >> thank you, senator, i will look at both of this issues. >> senator graham. >> thank you. general, i think you are an outstanding choice and the president couldn't have chosen a better person to be joint cheifs of staff. the best is yet to come. when it comes to stopping isil, thus the stated goal is to degrade and destroy, what if we fail in that goal? >> senator if we were to fail in stopping isil you will see an expansion across the middle east and outside of the middle east. >> so they are an expanding power as we speak?

>> i think they expand in terms of geographic locations but not in terms of capability. >> i remember talking in the office you said if we don't stop the guys we can expect a tsunami of isis and their sympathizers. is that fair? >> that is exactly what i said and i stand by that comment. >> i don't want the tsunami to come so we will have to stop them. is it fair to say iraq and syria need to be viewed as one battle space when it comes to isis? it is hard to stop them in iraq without addressing their presence in syria. >> absolutely. >> can you envision a scenario where you have a regional army made up in turkey that would go into the syria and fight isis alone leaving assad off the table. would they join up for a fight in >> senator it is hard watching

the politics from the outside right now to see that degree of integration given the interest those countries have. but i can see where that would be an effective way to deal with this; having a regional army willing to deal with isis. >> if you did not put assad removal on the table it would be hard to get them to join to fight isis? >> that is right. most of the countries you spoke about have a shared goal of removing assad from power >> would you agree assad's presence is a magnet for sunni extremist? >> i think if not the main cause but one of the big ones was the assad regime. >> if we go down in forces in afghanistan do we lose our counterterrorism mission? >> my assessment is we would have a degrading.

>> would we lose our eyes and ears along the afghanistan-pakistan border we enjoy today in >> we would senator. >> would that create a lot of risk, in your view to the gains we have achieved over the last decade if we didn't have the eyes and ears and counterterrorism forces? >> there is no question it would create risk. >> when it comes to 60 free syrian army troops being trained under the current regime would you agree it would be hard to recruit people to go into syria if you don't promise them protection from assad because if they get any capability at all in fighting isil assad would assume that capability would be turned on him and he is not going to sit on the sidelines and watch a force develop without hitting them. does that make sense? >> i agree with that assessment.

>> so the most logical training is assad will see them as a threat to his regime and most likely attack? >> i agree with that senator. >> it would be immoral to put someone in that position knowing that is coming their way without some capability to defend themselves. >> if we train the moderate syrian forces we should provide them with material to be successful. >> if the war in syria continues the way it is going for another year, do you worry about stability in jordan? >> i do senator. >> do you worry about stability in lebanon? >> i do senator. >> so the consequences of being into the syria with a regional forces and the problems associated with it have to be balanced between the consequences of isis surviving and thriving?

>> i agree with that senator. >> over the long hall is it in america's national interest to do things necessary to degrade and destroy isis? >> i believe it is in our nationt interest to do that. >> do you agree whatever army we may form there is certain american capabilities that would be outcome determined based on any fight with isis and it would be in our national interest to provide the capabilities >> i agree with that in terms of aviation special operation capabilities and other ways. >> if a soldier or member of the military falls in iraq or syria trying to destroy isis would you agree with me they died protecting their homeland? >> i would, senator. >> and that is the reason some may have to go back? >> there is no question in my mind the 3500 inside of iraq and those in the surrounding area

working for sent com are protecting our nation. >> god bless them. god bless you. best of luck. >> thank you sir. >> general on behalf of the chairman let me thank you for your testimony and your service and the service of your family and also on behalf of the chairman i will now adjourn the hearing. >> thank you, senator reed.

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> here are some featured programs this weekend: with the upcoming release of harper lee's new novel c-span2 focused on the novelist starting with talking about the impact of lee's book to kill a mockingbird and her life and history. we will reair these programs sunday evening beginning at 6:30. on sunday at 10:00 hue hewitt on hillary clinton's second run for president. saturday on c-span memories of the vietnam war with reading and remarked by praiseesidents. and on american history tv on

c-span 3, saturday, flagler professor on the factors that led to the great depression and roosevelt's actions that helped. and we talk about general sherman, the burning of atlanta georgia and columbia south carolina and why sherman is not the villain of poplar legend. >> for the first time since the civil rights movement the confederate flag was removed entirely from the south carolina state house in this ten minute ceremony today before thousands of people. governor nick -- nickkki haley

signed the bill to remove the flag that has been flying for 54 years. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [applause] [applause] [applause]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [applause] [applause] [applause]

[applause] >> usa! usa!

usa! usa! usa! usa! ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ [applause]

[cheers and applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the killing of nine black church members during a bible study in charleston last month ignited calls to take on confederate flags and symbols across the nation. the u.s. house passed an amendment to disallow confederate flags on federal property. the bill was pulled with another amendment came out. here's an explanation.

>> host: could you set the stage with a star in the paper point out what happened in congress today. this is the headline from "usa today." spending issues been put on hold and that was displaced by the flag at certain times. the details what happened yesterday? >> caller: yes. we started the day. first of all on wednesday there was an appropriations bill that they're working on and the story before that, democrats had added a very noncontroversial voice vote amendments that would've basically banned the use of federal funds to display the confederate battle flag on federal lands. cemeteries under the national park service control that would not be able to display the

confederate flag. that was added in a very quick voice vote. there was no republicans spoke against it. that provision would get through that any debate. apparently we have some republicans not satisfied with that and asked for a vote on the confederate flag basically undoing that amendment. they were considerable enough in size where they said if we don't get a vote on this we are not going to pass this interior appropriations bill. the chairman of the subcommittee, the interior appropriations subcommittee, though he doesn't support the amendment himself the added back in, queued up an amendment for a vote which would have been dead that particular democratic amendment -- i'm done -- allow us it currently, the provisions allow, they would allow

confederate flag to be displayed on federal lands. that was on wednesday night. by thursday morning this week, sort of had woken up to what was already a growing public relations fiasco for a lot of republicans. essentially speaker boehner made a decision with other gop leaders they work would have this debate on the house floor and they were not going to subject members to that particular vote right now. >> host: let me put you on positive for a second. we have a speaker statement from yesterday as part of this debate let's listen to what he has to say. >> look our members right eye do dress the concerns yesterday in a way that was consistent with how the obama administration has handled this issue. i frankly supported the goal of trying to work with all the parties to address their concerns but listen we all

witnessed the people of charleston and the people of south carolina come together in a respectful way to do with frankly what was a very horrific crime and a difficult issue with the confederate flag. i actually think it's time for some adults in congress to sit down and have a conversation about how to address this issue. i do not want this to become some political football. it should not. >> host: will this become a political football, do you think? >> caller: it already has. even by then. they pulled the bill that the thing was that under the rules of the house minority leader can get a vote on a permanent resolution. so nancy pelosi, i think this was advantageous for democrats because they hijacked the floor and the new cycle for a day. she just put up a very small resolution of essentially would

only affect one flag on the house side. resolution would remove any symbol flag it as a reprint of the confederate flag on which the only one that has that is mississippi state flag. there's only one flag is displayed that's not a nonmember office lack, the resolution was tailored to just flags that were not outside members offices. it was a very small resolution but truthfully serving as a proxy for this debate. but we saw on the house floor was republicans who are looking to avoid that debate absolutely had it yesterday and we saw very clearly the divisions that exist between republicans and democrats on the broadbrush level but a lot of republicans really do insist if they had not voted on this caliber amendment, first of all it would've gone down but you would have releasing a lot of republicans

who just don't support the confederate flag, voting against the amendment that republicans insisted on. it was a quite revealing vote that's much more of a partyline system although you did have the republican from florida who refused to vote with his party only one who broke ranks on the. democrats made an incredible show yesterday with the confederate flag resolution where it was a show of force. on the floor they voted with voting cards rather than voting by electronic device. there was a lot of shouting on the house floor house of representatives that is matt fuller exponential bit of what took place as far as this issue at the confederate flag. he writes for the publication. you can read history online. thanks for conveying that to us. >> caller: thanks for having me. >> south carolina lord of the confederate flag in front of its state capitol today. a highway patrol honor guard

quietly folded it. the flag will be placed in a state of military museum. yesterday governor nikki haley signed legislation requiring it to come down. she called for the flag's removal after the june 17 shooting of nine black parishioners at a charleston church. you can see the 10 minute flag ceremony tonight at eight eastern on c-span. >> homeland security secretary jeh johnson welcome to the new transportation security administration chief peter neffenger this week at the tsa headquarters. before spring and the tsa administered, secretary johnson addressed aviation security and the recent failed airport screening. he outlined a 10-point plan in response to the failed screenings of explosives and weapons. this is about 20 minutes. >> good morning and thank you for being you. i see a number of senior leaders of the department of homeland

security across the department. admiral neffenger's family senior leaders of tsa. thank you all for being here. on an important day. a little over a month ago to eliminate results of an inspector general's test of tsa screening at airports leak to the press. the archie's desk were fairly discrete. just 70 tests across -- igs report were discrete. the results were unsatisfactory. the american traveling public is entitled to know that air travel is safe and that the taxpayers are getting what they paid for. to put all this in context, aviation security involves layers of protection, seen and unseen. as was the case here our ig to whether benefit of an insider's knowledge, routinely conducts tests of various isolated parts of the system.

without passing through all of it like the traveling public must do. nevertheless upon receiving the preliminary results of the igs test, i immediately directed and tsa has undertaken a series of things that constitute a 10-point plan to address the concerns raised. many of these measures are already underway at address the concerns raised by the igs test. one i directed that all federal security directors at every airport in the united states be briefed in detail on the inspector general's preliminary test results. this has been done. number two, i have directed back to basics training for every tsa officer in the country. tsa will conduct training for all transportation security officers and supervisory personnel to inform them of the specific vulnerabilities identified by the testing tsa is

now implementing this in a phased and layered manner. the first phase began on may 29, 2015. we project that all tsa officers will have received this training by the end of september. three tsa has increased manual screening measures. therefore, since mid-june tsa has reintroduced the use of hand-held metal detectors at security checkpoints across the country. number four we've increased the use of random explosives trace detectors. is also went into effect in mid-june. five, tsa is retesting and reevaluating the type of screening equipment that was tested by the ig at airports across the united states to ensure that it performs as expected. senior tsa officials and i have

personally met with the chief executive officer of the manufacturer of equipment and you pledged the company's full support and cooperation in this effort. six and the longer-term, we are assessing the existing performance standards for the screening equipment and identifying areas where the operability of the equipment can be enhanced. seven, we are reevaluating the practice of managed conclusion. managed conclusion is the process at airports by which travelers are diverted from standard screening lanes to ask but i did screening lanes, along with members of tsa precheck. eight, we are revising tsa's standard operating procedures to address the specific vulnerabilities identified ip inspector general. this includes the possible greater use of tsa supervisors to help resolve situations at

screening checkpoints. as part of this on june 26 tsa began field testing new standard operating procedures at six airports. lessons learned will be incorporated and deployed nationwide later this month. nine the inspector general and tsa will conduct continued random covert testing to assess effectiveness of these new actions. 10, i have appointed a tiger team of dhs and tsa officials to monitor intimidation of these measures. the team is already well underway with its work, has already given me status reports and will continue to do so every two weeks. finally, in addition to this 10-point plan i want to take this opportunity to introduce our new tsa administered. confirmed by the senate on june june 22, retiring coast guard vice admiral and vice commandant

pete neffenger. like the second tsa administrator, admiral james loy, vice admiral messenger will window translate his maritime security skills and experience over to aviation. pete neffenger is one of the brightest and most capable military officers i have ever met. i know he'll be a strong and effective leader of tsa. i salute them for stepping away from a distinguished and successful career in the coast guard, retiring to civilian life, and taking on this other very demanding job, serving his country. pete, my charge to you is to be an energetic leader and do not hesitate to think out of the box, rethink old assumptions, encourage your people, your subordinates to raise ideas and points of view. and make the hard choices when you have to.

that 10-point plan i described here today is in reaction to the latest round of tests by the inspector general. and is not meant to be the all inclusive future of of tsa. we must continually and comprehensively reevaluate and reevaluate what is best for aviation. we must question the assumption and never become comfortable or complacent when it comes to aviation security. pete, you should also know that in my personal observation, the rank-and-file of tsa is filled with good and dedicated people who care about their important mission. they are ready to embrace you as their new leader and follow your directives. having said all that admiral neffenger has already been sworn in, officially. i would now like to take the opportunity to ceremonially swear in the eppinger, and you

administer of tsa. pete, come on up. stand there. raise your right hand. i comment peter neffenger do solemnly swear that i will support and defend the constitution of the united states, against all enemies foreign and domestic, that i will bear true faith and allegiance to defense, that i take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that i am well and faithfully discharge, the duties of the office on which i am about to enter. so help me god. congratulations. >> thank you, sir. [applause]

>> mr. administrator come over to you. >> thank you. i'll have to get used to that. that's a new title for me. thank you. and over been there. thank you, mr. secretary for the privilege of serving in this position and thank you for the honor of having you here. and thanks to all of my family and my friends and my colleagues from the coast guard to hear today and the ones who did the real work for standing over against the wall over there. it's really an honor and privilege to be here today. and i think you for extending that honor to my family as well. i'm really humbled by the president tresemme, by your trust in the, at a commitment for to serve in this important leadership position where i also think you for your great leadership at dhs as well as the personal support in advancing my nomination.

and then i also owe a deep debt of gratitude to undersecretary frank taylor who was the acting administered over the past few months and stepped up when the department of tsa need his leadership and did a superb job. it's always good to follow somebody who's done some great work. so thank you, frank. and to the men and women dashed into the men and women of tsa thanks for being here. it's really an honor to join your ranks and will switch and you can people in securing our nation's transportation system. you perform an accredited important difficult mission every day that demands disciplined performance, constant vigilance and the need to sustain a high level of professionalism and respect for the public that we server i want you to know that you are full support and confidence in your mission. my top priority is to protect our nation's transportation system to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce. this is the nation of tsa. we are a securitization entity number of our team is always be laser focused on this core mission. i will commit myself to ensuring

the continued to pursue our vision of an effective, high-performing counterterrorism organization guided by risk-based strategies and choosing a multilayered intelligence driven approach. and most important i believe it was a fight that define tsa integrity, innovation and team spirit. i ask each member to join in committing to these core values. will commit ourselves to performing other duties with integrity, discipline and professionalism. this remains important. nearly 14 years after the attacks of 9/11 we still face threats from terrorist groups and some homegrown extremist. yesterday the threat is more decentralized, if you sent complex than ever before. today's tears have publicized their instruction manual that are calling for people to use it. but most important to us are in dispute transportation systems as target particularly aviation. these threats are persisting growing and most pressing challenge our enemies will continually adapt to try to defeat us so we must continually

innovate to defeat them. each member of tsa must approach every task with integrity and team spirit demands we serve our mission above all of the end all of the internet and publisher each of us at tsa headquarters service supports the offices inspectors, the marshals come employers and the private sector partners who are on the frontlines of tsa each and every day. i've talked to quite a few of officers in preparation for this job listen to the ideas and they told how much they care about thethe nation and asked me to sport than in accomplishing that mission. i have heard in an effort to get i will ensure each of our officers are trained, developed and supported, our culture and our morale and effectiveness are a direct result of consistent and career long drink of recognition and candidate and double work hard to deliver on these tortillas and for all of you. we will develop the right measures drive a focus on security, build a culture of adaptation, one that functions plans and processes it is able

to rapidly field new concept, new performance standards and new capabilities. and, finally we deliver an effective secure system and sustain the confidence of the public through competent, disciplined performance and professionalism. we have a tough mission for taking the public and preserving liberties that we cherish. still i know we're up to the task am confident in our ability to succeed. mr. secretary context of your charge. we will make industry changes we assess old assumptions and we will make tough choices, ones that are -- and for confidence, for support at tsa and thank you all again for the new today. i'm really honored by your presence and i wish you all a great day. thank you. [applause] >> all right. the press is here your we've got time for a few questions if

anyone is inclined to ask one. yes, i see the hands going up. right here. >> if i could take the opportunity to ask you about an unfortunate situation over the weekend involving a young woman who was killed in san francisco. she was killed allegedly by somebody have been given sanctuary come immigration century by the city and county of san francisco. can you talk about to what extent the sanctuary, if at all makes it difficult for homeland security to secure the nation's borders and prevent criminals from being on the streets because let me answer this way. first of all the death of this young woman in summer cisco is a tragedy, a real tragedy. the alleged killer has been apprehended as you know and in my view, this type of situation highlights the importance of the

direction where we are headed. the director and i want to focus on removing, deporting criminals, convicted criminals. and we want to demonstrate to law enforcement the import and effectiveness of our new priority enforcement program. this was a program that we announced in november to replace the old security security communities program. a lot of local jurisdictions were resisting cooperating with our security committee programs which is an effort to get at criminals who are behind bars so that they can be deported if they are undocumented. that program had become very controversial. we have replaced it with a new priority enforcement program and sarah and i and others, the deputy secretary been going around the country, including in california talking to state and local officials about this new

program and how this new program will promote law enforcement. it will promote and facilitate our ability to get the threats to public safety who are behind bars so that we go to a local jurisdiction and say you have an undocumented in your gao who is dangerous, cooperate with us to have been over to us. that will happen more and more. unfortunately, the are a lot of jurisdictions that have resisted that around the country with the older programs so put this new program in place which i believe result of political and legal obstacles and objections that have been arising. we are headed in the direction where we want to work more effectively with state and local jurisdictions to get at people who are threats to public safety undocumented and we should be focusing our resources on deporting. so that's my overall observation

i believe we are headed in that direction, and everyday we take a step in that direction. yes, sir, in the back. [inaudible] the michigan -- in a combined exercise. do you believe we are too far away that same law enforcement of both countries also organized to ensure the border and protect -- in combating criminals? >> with a great working relationship with our mexican homeland security border security law enforcement counterparts. it's a very important relationship to me and other officials of this department and our government. i've been pleased by the level of cooperation that we've seen in my time in office and as secretary. and i hope and expect that will continue. we have time for one more question. yes, ma'am, right here.

[inaudible] taking a second look at that. i was wondering -- the house has been a bill through committee. are you going to try to scale back? >> we are looking at this right now, and we want to arrive at the appropriate balance in a thoughtful way and so we are in the midst of that review right now as i mentioned in my remarks. i do believe that this is an issue that should be studied, as we have progressed with tsa precheck, which is a terrific program. we've seen longer and longer short lines and so i've asked tsa to take a good look at whether we have the right

approach in that regard, and they are doing that right now. okay thanks a lot, everybody. appreciated. thank you for being here. congratulations, peter. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> south carolina lord of the confederate flag in front of its state capitol today. and a highway patrol honor guard quietly folded it. the flag will be placed in the states military museum. yesterday governor nikki haley signed legislation requiring it to come down. she had called for the flag's removal after the june 17 shooting of nine black parishioners at a charleston church. you can see the 10 minute flag ceremony tonight at eight eastern on c-span.

>> conservative pollster and author of the soviet vote on the trends and technology, the millennial generation and how the political parties are vying for this increasingly crucial voting bloc. >> when you take a look at where people's eyeballs are are going if you city folks are focused on the television. political advertising became heavily focused on ads. technology has changed so that if you walk into a room not just a 20 year old buddy 60 year old what are they looking at? their phone. so for folks in the political world who want to reach the next generation or just reach into the future understood what the future of political advertising is going to look like. things i can to crush a whatever the latest game is can be crushed may be fake and popular but there's always something new that is popping up. find ways to get your message in front of people where they're paying attention i think is important. >> sunday night at eight eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a.