-- increased -- >> c-span created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service from your local cable or satellite provider. >> host: fadi chehade is the president and ceo of the internet corporation of assigned names and numbers and he is our guest on the "the communicators." what is the current status of icann and its governance? >> guest: icann is a california non-profit organization that is very much in a state of solid governance. we have a board that is elected by the community and that board has been performing its function for years with great transparency and accountability

to its community. as a result of course of the u.s. announcement that they plan to end their stewardship of icann which was envisioned since the beginning of icann, we have been meeting with community members and having them on their own build conc etchin consensus we can do to strengthe icann and strengthen its accountability. that effort is ongoing and involved hundreds of people from all over the world and great results are starting to come out that frankly gives me a good sense that we will soon have a new set of mechanisms and proposals that will further icann's accountability and insure that when the united states government ends its historic rule as our steward

that icann as an institution is stable and independent of any other institution. >> host: do you support the delay in turning over the governance of the oversight of icann? >> guest: we are and have been clear that it is more important to get this right than do it quickly or rush a certain timeline. therefore the delay that was agreed recently between the community, ourselves, and the u.s. government was designed to insure that the community has ample time to finish its work, submit it to the u.s. government, to give your u.s. government ample time to review it, look at it, make sure we have the same consenus that our government and congress has it unequivale unequivale

unequivalently over the years. we must insure all of that happens. and finally that any key elements of that proposal have the necessary time frame to be implemented publically so that before the u.s. ends its stewardship that we have agreement on the broad scale in the community and within our u.s. government and then we have implemented the necessary components to insure that this proposal is a living proposal that is implemented before the u.s. government and its stewardship. >> host: fadi chehade as you know there have been voices in congress that are not supportive of the turnover to a multi stake oversight board. it is inevitable that icann will be governed by a

multistakeholdmultistakeholemul mold holder? >> i think that is the approach that everyone agrees on. our congress passed this as the right support. therefore the support for that model is unquestionable. what i think was important through this transition was to insure that that model especially without u.s. oversight will withstand any pressures from anyone, any special interest, or any special agenda from inside or outside of the united states. you surf the wisdom of the community and the consensus of the multi steak holder community. the was never a question on whether this was the right model. the u.s. government served, i

think, as a very important backstop during the years of the formation and the strengthening of the multi steakhoake holder and now the model is strong and involves every major u.s. company and every global company that works closely with our internet affairs is at the table. we have governance and civil societies and technical groups, the multi stake holder players are at the table and the u.s. government came to the conclusion that the model is now ready for it to show the world our belief and your commitment to this model. and the best way to do that is to let it go.

just like most of us many times let go of our children at a concern -- certain point. this is the point where the u.s. government has come to the conclusion we need to let go. i must add the house passed the dot com act, again with great majority recently, supporting the multi stakeholder model and supporting we move forward with this transition. however with the proper safeguards that would insure, again, no special interest would step into a vacuum but rather the safeguard and the assurance and stress test have been visited and that is what we have been doing to ensure the model remains safe after the u.s. ends its historic stewardship. >> host: joining the conversation is brenden from "the national journal."

>> you mentioned the dot com act which is a bill that would allow this provision to go forward while giving congress a chance to review it. it passed the house but senator ted cruz blocked it on the senate. what do you think of senator cruz's position and if that is having an affect on the transition. >> guest: the concerns any senator or citizen of the internet has about the independence of dysfunction and the assurance that no party can have control or capture capability over the multi stakeholder approach that involves all of the key players,

including the continued role of our government and other governments. they are all going to stay. but his concerns are actually frankly appreciated. many of us have the same concerns. i think we may have small differences with a small number of legislaturers is they are being convinced that the assurances we have sufficient. we believe they are. and in fact, most of the people who have been close to this incr incredibly process that involves every company from microsoft to verizon to cisco and all of these are participating to make sure this is a fair model that

all allows for free independence. we have more work to do with a very small number of legislatures and we will continue to do it. and i am very confidant that when they see the fullness of the proposal the community built from bottom up through consensus they will agree we looked at every possible scenario and we remain confidant as the u.s. exits from its unique historic role the model that they built, the model the u.s. government supported through multiple administrations, democrat and republicans over many years, that model stands. and if i could, let me just add, that this is important for icann. but it is also important for the broader discussion of internet governance. there are many issues of internet governance that remain to be addressed.

and we hope that icann's success in showing that a private sector led, multi-stakeholder model can actually achieve success as we have for many years without the stewardship of one particular pa party. that is a signal about the strength of the model as a potential reference model to solve the many issues that need to be addressed that are beyond icann but in the broader spear of internet governance. >> do you have concern that whether some of the more authoritarian regimes might try to gain more power through the it or another body like the united nations? >> guest: i think that ship has sailed in the sense that the

agreement of many governments around the world that icann as an institution with the multi stakeholder model is the place to address these key internet resources is now established. i think this is a great bases upon which to feel more comfortable with where we are today. and i will give you several examples. only in late 2013 we had some very clear signals that brazil, for example, wanted to see more of the dialogue on internet governance and more of the management of our affairs move into a human mode. since then that has been completely readdressed openly by the president of brazil multiple

times and the brazilian government has indicated support for the multi-stakeholder model and icann. and china made a remarkable announcement at the icann meeting in london in june of 202 2014 in which the most senior official came to the icann meeting and made an announcement supporting icann's role and the consensus model by which we reach decisions in icann. this was quite an important change to our affairs. and then most recently at the recent icann beating in be --

announced that india also supports icann and its multi-stakeholder model. so three major governments here have embraced icann's role as a multi stakeholder organization that represents the public interest in an independent way. in fact, i would go further, brendan, and say our independence is more guaranteed if there is no one party that either has or has the ability to exhurt unique control over our affairs. in other words, the best guarantee of our stability in our work, is our independence. so the u.s. decision to show the

world the multi stakeholder model works and it is comfortable and ready to end the stewardship, which was promised from the beginning, that now is the moment, i think is the best contributor to your independence and the next guarantee that other governments or other individuals or other companies will understand that our strength and our stability and our resilience as a multi stakeholder organization is best guaranteed by our independence. >> host: fadi chehade, in this multi stakeholder approach you have been disticho -- discussin this government oversight or private oversight? >> guest: very much private.

governments have an advisory role. they cannot have a seat on the board of directors or make decisions. this is a triumph of showing how the private sector led institutions that has the government as an important advisory board but has a broader base that is private sector led, including input from the technical community, civil society and academics. but pat's advice that informs the policy and the board activities are anchored in the fact that governments are continuing to play an advisory role to what we do. >> host: how would you envision the u.s. role after this occurs? >> guest: it will be just like any important role the u.s.

plays in any international or global arena. in other words, we within icann have multiply communities that effect policy. for example, most of the policy, not all of the policy relate today the domain system, comes from a group within icann that includes many, many, u.s. businesses that would be familiar to you. the ciscos, at&t, microsoft, googles, the facebooks, they are all participating. that is where the policy is baked and rises to the board for sanctio sanctions. the u.s. government and other governments will play an advisory role at icann. we have the governmental advisory committee and it is advisory as the name notes.

there is over a 150 governments in the group and the u.s. government participates in that body. i think it is important to appreciate that at icann government advice can come to the board and only when that advice is based on the consensus of the 150 governments. so this is not a voting body necessarily. this is a body that needs to build consensus and i think that strengthens the advice and makes sure the advice is not influenced by one or two parties but rather is advice based on the broad consensus of government. and then when it comes it is just advice that the board can reject or accept and we have done so as the evidence shows in the past.

>> there has been disagreement about the community working groups and icann's board about how to make the organizational accountable. can you explain what that dispute is about and how you come down on it. >> guest: first, let me clarify, i think we see any pronouncements by one party or another a dispute. welcome to the multi stakeholder model. it is messy, everybody says their input. many community members have input. we have received a healthy set of comments through the work of that particular group you mentioned. that is the group the community formeded to -- formed to make a proposal on how to strengthen

icann. we have to talk about what we need to do to make sure that icann is accountability when the role ends. many view the government's role in icann served as a backstop and an important backstop. the first assignment was what do we need to do to replace that backstop when the u.s. ends its stewardship. and i think those elements we have good alignment between everyone on moving forward with them. now, beyond that, there is a set of elements, the community has been discussing, to further strengthen icann's accou accountability beyond replacing the contract. and i think in that group of things i would say you have three sub-components.

one component where i think we are aligned. i will give you an example of one. we need to remove the community -- the community should have the power it remove board members or directors if they are not adhering to the fundamental by laws. neither the board or committee has issues with that. these are elements we are aligned on. and then there is another group where we are aligned on but defer ordef defer on how to implement these. i think we can bring these. and there are a small number of elements that we don't have clear alignment on yechlt and i am happy to tell you that the cost of unity working group on accountability, a community-led group, is meeting this weekend in los angeles, here, and we will spend two days to basically

sort through the subsets i mentioned to you and bring us closer to alignment. many of the board members, myself and others, will be there participating in the meeting of the cross community working grow, supporting them in every way possible. i do think we are much closer to being fully aligned than appears in the chaotic nature of the back and forth of the multi stakeholder model. but we are, in my opinion, and i think this weekend will show, much more aligned than appears and i hope as we exit from that we are more aligned than we are today. >> we have been talking about the united states giving up the contractual role in icann but i want to ask you about another issue which is the expansion of

the domain names. i am wondering what the next step is with the extensions and if you learned any lessons, there are controversial issues with dot sucks where people could buy a brand and people would buy that as the brand dot sucks. so i am wondering if you learned lessons and what might change in the next expansion of domain endings. >> thank you. the program is now up and running. and hundreds of top level domains like, you know, dot nyc for new york city or paris or dot catholic or you know, many are now approved and moving into the root of the internet for the users to access them and enjoy them. so i think it must be said that overall this program has been a

success. it was the first time we do it in this major way and therefore without question there is a lot of learning. we are convening in the next few months a group of community members to work with them on really gathering these lessons learned. so it a little bit early for me to catalog these. and frankly, it is not for me to catalog them but for the whole community, including businesses, civil societies, government, technical people, for all of us to work together and all of the work we do is transparency so it is shared publically and everyone sees how we can do better next time. i am give you an example of something we could have done better. i believe we were late in our effort to make sure that this program has diversity and that those who maybe around the world didn't have the knowledge or the know how to participate could

have more easily participated. we tried to do some things in the late stages of the program but, you know, quite frankly, i think it was a little bit too late to get that diversity and that broad participation successful. and that is okay. so the program will reopen. and at some point we will learn from many of the lessons we are cataloging right now. there are some controversial elements of this program. you mentioned the controversy with dot sucks and others. there is no question. we are change and innovation and more often than not going about a new set of issues we didn't expect. i think what is important is to see how we are addressing these together. and to understand that icann is not the top down in --

institution. we may have a view on the domain but it is not up to me or any individual on the board to make the calls. the way things work with icann, and that makes more time, is we throw it back to the community and have the community build consensus and come back to us. the question that should be asked of me as the chief executive officer is are you implementing the community's consensus guidelines to rule out this program? and if i fail in that then i failed the institution and frankly we failed our community. so as we learned, and our community learned many things, i think that the next round of this program will clearly be even more successful in that we will avoid some of the pitfalls

that frankly maybe no one even imagined would take place because this is brand new. new territory and just like anything knew we tried. i am glad we tried. some of the new top level domains are making a big difference. the huge expansion of non latin cooks domains is bringing billions of people around the world who don't even have a latin script keyboard into the domain name system. that is fantastic. other top level domains are providing people with authenticity. if you buy an expensive watch online you may have apprehension as to whether the source of the watch is good or not. but if you are buying and i am using this as an example, an

omega watch that has as the top level domain dot omega meaning the company, using this as an example again, the company had handed the domain to a trusted retailer and then you would hope that would get you much closer to authenticity of what you are getting. the catholic church is using dot catholic to ensure a system they have managed for hundreds of years with a book, that gives people the sense that the institution that has a website that ends with the name dot catholic is associated with the church. and cities, dot nyc, who are building communities around top level domains. so there are many good things also that this program is bringing to the surface of the

user giving them choice and different other factors. >> and finally in the last 60 seconds you are leaving your position earlier than presumed. why and what will you be doing afterwards? >> my term was three years. and my term actually ended a few months ago. what we did agree with the board was that they would give me an extra runway of a couple years on top of this so i would have the chance and the time to complete some of the major programs i have. it wasn't necessarily the intention i would say the full run way but it was available to us and to this community and this board if needed. and i think we came to the determination that indeed it was a good decision because part of that runway was needed. i would have otherwise had to

leave in june of this year. but that i will not need the full runway and we made the determination that march would be sufficient time to have completed the major programs i had and i look forward to frankly solid continuity at icann and i am confidant the process the board put in place to find a great replacement. >> host: this is the "the communicators" on c-span. fadi chehade ceo of internet corporation for assigned names and numbers. c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. orporation for assigned names and numbers and on the future of the

leadership and the california republican announcing resigned from the tactics. and then democratic representative, a member of the budget committee fought efforts to pass a short term spending bill to avoid a government shutdown. and a congressional reporter with bloomberg dna will talk about wednesday's deadline to fund the government. we welcome comments on facebook and twitter. >> a signature feature of booktv is our festivals and all day coverage. here is our schedule. the southern festival of books in nashville in early october. and after that we are live from austin for the texas book festival. and near the end of the month we will be coverering two book

festivals on the same weekend. from the nation heartland it is the wisconsin book festival in madison and on the east coast the boston book festival. at the starts of november we will be in portland, oregon for word stock followed by the national book awards in new york city and then in november we are live from miami, florida for the book fair international. that is a few of the book fairs we will be attending. >> today republican presidential candidate donald trump released his plan to overhaul the tax code eliminating state and income taxes for couples earning under $50,000. we unveiled the plan at trump tower in new york city. this is half an hour. >> so we are going to be discussing something so important for our country and

economy and to get us working well again. it is a tax reform i think that will break america great and strong again. americans are working and too many jobs are being shifted overseas and too many middle income families cannot make income meet. this plan directly meets this challenges and the challenges also of business. it will provide major tax relief for middle income and for most other americans. there will be a major tax reduction. it will simplify the tax code. it will grow the american economy at a level it hasn't seen for decades. and all of this does not add to

our debt or our deficit. but i will also be discussing some of that at the end because we have to make much better deals, we have to negotiate much harder and we have got to make our economy strong. changes for individual will be at levels that you haven't seen in a long time. we are going to cut the individual rates from 7 brackets to 4. simple. 25%, 20%, 10%, and 0%. if you are single and earned less than $25,000 per year or married and jointly earning less than $50,000 -- so, very important, if you are single and earn less than $25,000 or

married and jointly earn less than $50,000 san diegos you will not pay any income tax. nothing. this eliminates very strongly and quickly the marriage penalty. very unfair penalty. it eliminates the amt which is the alternative minimum tax. it ends the death tax. it is a double taxation. a lot of families go through hell over the death tax. it reduces or eliminated most of the deductions and loopholes available to special interest and to the very rich. in other words it is going to cost me a fortune, which is actually true, while preserving charitable giving and mortgage interest deductions. very importantly. it ends the current tax

treatment of carried interest. those are the hedge fund folks that i have been talking about for quite a while. make a lot of money. carried interest. so it ends the current tax treatment of carried interest through partnerships that do not grow businesses or create jobs and are not risking their own capital. changes are business: so burped because it is all about business. it is all about jobs. we have 93 million people in this country that are in serious trouble. that want to work but want characteristic. so for business, no business of any size from a fortune 500 company to a mom and pop shop to a freelancer living from gig to gig will pay more than 15% of their business income in taxes. big reduction.

a one-time deemed repatriation of corporate cash held overseas at significantly discount which coming back at a significantly discount of 10% tax rate so it comes back discounted at a 10% tax rate and ends the deferl of taxes on corporate income earned abroad. it is called corporate inversion. it is a huge subject. i have been watching politicians for years. all talk no action. i have been watching them talk about bringing the money back. the number is probably $2.5 trilli trillion. everybody agrees it should come back. they can't make a deal. the reason companies aren't bringing it back is because the

tax is onerous. many companies are leaving the united states. they are leaving our shores to go and collect their money. they are going and moving out of the united states for two reasons: the taxes are too high and because they have tremendous amount of money they cannot bring back into the country. as an example, i have millions of dollar overseas. i cannot brick bring it back in. so the money stays in other coaptries and that is what happens. not good for us. the level of leadership that we need to get things like this done is so important. but this is something -- and i've been watching it for a long time -- everybody agrees to. we also reduce or eliminate some

business loopholes -- many of them actually -- and deductions made unnecessary redundant by the new lower tax rate on business income. the tax rate is so low that a lot of these deductions which are complicated and don't make sense and are unfair are gone. and we phase in a reasonable cap on the deductibility of the business interest expense. so we are going to give you -- we have a very complex set of papers that actually if you know business is not so complex. and we have going to hand them out now to the press. and i think you will see we have an amazing code. it will be simple. it will be easy. it will be fair. its graduated. as you get up in income, you pay a little more. some of the very unfair

deductions that certain people who have been given who make a a lot of money will not be available any longer. but i believe they will do better because i believe the economy will grow and have something special. with all of that being said, and before we take questions, we have to cut the cost of what is going on in this country. if you look at what we have doing and the money we are spending. i read where a washer, you know what a washer is? nuts, bolt and washer. to send from one state to another. it was a 19 cent washer and cost $900 some odd dollars to get there. and there are many examples. hammers that cost $800 that you can buy in a store for a tiny amount.

there is so much money to be saved. we are reducing president but at the same time if i win, we will be able to cut so much money. we won't be loosing anything other than balancing budgets and getting them where they should be. so this is plan that is simple, that is a maimer reduction. i think people are going to be very happy. we have already have some very good reviews. i did the plan with some of the leading scholars and economist and tax experts that there are in this country. they love it. they say why hasn't this been done before. this is why wheelhouse. this is what i do well. the economy is what i do well. whenever they do polls i always come out way above everybody else on the economy and on leadership, by the way, but i won't say that. so if anybody has -- [applause]

>> thank you. that is amazing. that is some of the press that was clapping. i don't think i have seen that before. why don't we take questions from the press? go ahead. >> [inaudible conversation]. >> no i am not going to do that yet. we are looking at 3% but we think it be be 5% or 6%. we are going to have growth and that would be tremendous. we have more than 3% these numbers are amazing. one thing they don't take into account is the cutting. there is no much waste in government that i believe when i get in there i will be able to cut without loosing anything to cut tremendous amounts off the budget and we are not showing things for that. so they are conservative

numbers. >> [inaudible question] >> my taxes will -- first of all, i will have a much simpler tax statement. it will bemuch simplelar. when i do my return, it will be much -- we want to simplify them through a tremendous level. the bracket of 25%, the big difference is many of the loopholes and many of the deductions which are old and they have been there for years. they were put there because a lot of the people that get the deductions are contributing to hillary, to bush, they are contributing to other candidate but trump because i am not taking any money. these people want the

reductions. there are people we are reducing taxes. but there are people in the upper echelons that will not be thrilled. we are taking away deductions and that is why we are able to lower it. [inaudible. >> this is actually a tax reduction. a big tax reduction including for the upper income. i believe the economy will do so well that even though they will not be getting certain deductions which are not fair for them to be doing that they will end up doing better. [inaudible question] >> i think this is a call in sense approach. you know you could say supply side. you could say there is 15 different names given out for different kinds of deductions or increases. i don't think this is supply

side or anything else. i think nis is a common sense, well not out tax were posal that's going to trigger the economy, and going to make everybody go back and really want to work. it is going to create tremendous numbers of jobs. one other thing i am coupling this with is if i am president i will renegotiate the trade deals because they are not sustainable. we cannot continue to let our jobs go to other countries. there is not a country we don't negotiate with that doesn't get a better deal. i am going to renegotiate some of our military cost. we protect south korea, we protect germany, we protect some of the wealthiest countries in the world. saudi arabia. we protect everybody. and we don't get reimbursement. we lose on everything. we lose on everything. so we are going to negotiate and renegotiate trade deals, military deals, and many other deals that is going to get the

cost down for running our country very significantly. i am not showing a big number in that. but i believe that if i become president those numbererize going to be massive. as an example: saudi arabia. they make $1 billion a day. we protect them. so we help. we are loosing a trumend hazardous amount of money on a yearly bases and we owe $19 trillion. i used to say $18 and now it is $19 and only going up. yes, tom? [inaudible question] >> well no, look. senator rubio is a lightweight. he would not be able to this. he would not know a trade deal from any other deal. certain people are trying to, we went up in the last poll, two points and continue to go up. in the nbc poll we went from 26%

to 29%. they don't know what to do about it. i've built a great company. you will see that in 60 minutes last night. it is a great company with very littleal debt and tremendous cash flow. i am funding my own campaign. guys like marco rubio desperately need money. ask the car dealer in florida. ask the people that support him. a guy like rubio and others. i don't want to single him out but they are controlled by donors and special interest and the lobbyist by more than anyone else. i have turned down millions from lobbyist and special interest because it is not the right thing and that seems to be resonating very well. [applause]. thank you.

>> i negotiate. i get bills from people. is that a bad thing? the country should do that. yeah, i would bring the same attitude to the white house. she said i have a habit. when you get a bill you call up and negotiate. to me that is a compliment. i bet we could say 20% of the budget. that has to be the attitude our country has. you cannot spend millions and millions on doing something you can do for $2,000. when you look at cost. we just spent a million dollars building a soccer field. okay? a soccer field. for our prisoners who happen to be in guantanamo bay. i don't like that. what do you need a million for? level out the surface and let them play. why do you need to spend a

million dollars? it was a story today. a million dollars on a soccer field. how do you spend a million doing a soccer field? you have a level piece of land. throw them a ball and let them play. why are they playing soccer is my question? okay. yes, sir, go ahead. [inaudible question] >> no, it is too long. you don't have time. why don't you go ahead? [inaudible question] >> right. >> no, not at all. we are lowering taxes which the republicans love. and i think one of the reasons i am doing so well in the polls and one of the reasons i am doing so well when it comes to the economy in all polls is this is the thinking. we are lowering taxes,

simplifying and getting rid of deductions that are obsolete that certain people want to keep for certain reasons. so no, that is not true. yes, sir, go ahead. [inaudible question] >> putin was interviewed and i was interviewed last night. i thought charlie rose did a great job but i thought his was softer. scott pely interviewed me and i thought scott was terrific. it was a tough interview but i thought he was fair and the piece was very good. yeah, go ahead. >> why is he hotter? i would say because putin is nicer. [inaudible question]

>> right. right. the worst in 36 years. you know you are talking about 10-11 years. it is called corporate inversion and they are moving out and getting out and getting jobs and now we are a big problem. we have companies that are large and precision and obviously you know you have major companies and they moved from new york and new jersey from texas or whatever. in england and other places to

stay where they get treated differently and better. they are doing that for a number of reasons and one of the big reasons is taxes and the other is to get all of this cash they built up and they can't get back into our country. when this money comes back into our country that everybody wants it is going to be put to work in our country largely. it can go other places but largely. and i think it will be an amazing boom. here is the other thing. they think it is $2.5 trillion. i think it is much more than that. i think it is going to be more money than that. and boy, if it is, we have hit pay day. >> go ahead real fast. [inaudible question] >> well, you know when you end the repatration and get the money coming back in tremendous things happen.

sarah, go ahead. i will be announcing that in the not too distant future. i am the only one honest about this. i watched the politicians saying we pay taxes. i fight like hell always to pay the least because it is an expense. i fight. i have the best lawyers, and accountants and i fight and i pay. but it is an expense and i would feel differently if the company spent the money wisely. our country sends the money so stupidly. i fight like hell to make the taxes i pay as low as possible

but i would feel differently if i respected our leadership's decision. all you to do is look at the things your government is spending money on right now and you don't feel so good about our country. yes? well, i tell you what in terms of income inequality. we will create a lot of jobs. we have a false 5.4, 5.3, every month is different. it is such a phony number because when people look and look and give up looking for a job they are taking it off the role. so the number is not reflective. i have seen numbers of 24%. i saw a number of 42% unemployment. it could be because when you are looking for a job and you go around and you look and look and you fight and you want to work and you want to take care of your family and you cannot get

the job, and you know what i am talking about because you are shaking your head, and you cannot get the job, essentially for statistically purposes you are considered employed. so every time it comes out i hear 5.3% unemployment. that is the biggest joke there is in this country. that number is so false. people ask how come trump is doing so well and carson and others. you know whey they are doing well? people are tired of political spoke and one of the worst examples is the phony unemployment rate. the unemployment rate is probably 20%. i will tell you you have great economist telling you 30-32% and the highest i heard is 42%. there is anger at the job picture out there. one other thing, with that being

said, china, japan, mexico, braz brazil, these countries are all taking our jobs like we are a bunch of babies. that will stop. people will treat us fairly if i become president. we are loosing our jobs, we are loosing our base, we are loosing our manufacturing and all of that will stop. yeah, go ahead. well, number one this is simpleification and what i am doing really is the big picture because corporations will have an incentive to create jobs and also to stay in this country. if a corporation gives out a bigger dividend he will have

more to spend in the economy so that is good. yes, ma'am? should chris christie what? [inaudible question] >> i know nothing about that. [inaudible] >> go ahead. [inaudible question] >> no, i am not a populus. i am a man of great common sense. i am man who built a tremendous company with the best locations in real estate and the best. you are at one of them. i have many of them. i have employed tens of thousands of people. i employ thousands and thousands of people. i would not say populus but i would say a man of common sense. cutting taxes, creating jobs and getting rid of waste and the

waste i get rid of is going to have a huge impact and i am not even putting that in my numbers so i think it will be terrific. how about one more question. go ahead. yes, the motor industry. that is a beautiful way of describing it. where were you from? england. i love it. what a beautiful accent. no, i want to get the industry -- we call it the automobile industry, but i want them to build factories here. ford is building a $2.5 billion plant in mexico. and mexico took a plant from tennessee as well. i want the automobile companies to build their plants in the united states. i don't want nabisco leaving for mexico or any place else. i want these companies not to leave chicago, not to leave

michigan, not to leave new hampshire and iowa and south carolina and all of these places where they are leaving and they are going to other countries, i want them to stay here and they will stay here and they will be so happy. ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. it has been a great honor. thank you. thank you. thank you. [applause] >> all campaign long, c-span takes you on the road to the white house. town hall meetings, news conferences, rallies and speeches. we are taking your comments on twitter, facebook and by phone and by also every campaign event we cover is able on cspan.org.

we do get a wide range of entries. the most important aspect for every documentary that we get is going to be content. we have had winners in the past created by just using a cell

phone and we have others that are created using more high-tech equipment. once again it's really the content that matters and shines through. the response from students in the past has been great. we have many different issues that they have created videos on the important of them. we have topics ranging from education, the economy and their minor and showing a wide variety of things that are important. >> it has many impact to better serve the community and the businesses. >> we definitely have come to the consensus that humans cannot run without it. >> prior to the disabilities education act for the ige a children with disabilities were not given the opportunity of an education. >> road to the white house what is the most important issue you want for candidates to discuss in the 2016 presidential campaign. it is full on into the campaign season.

there many different candidates discussing several issues. one of the key requirements in the documentary is to include c-span footage. this footage complements and furthers the point of view and not dominate the video but it's a great way for them to include more information on the videos that further their point. >> the first bill i will sign today is the water resources reform and development act. >> we have all heard the jokes about school and a fish fish sticks in the mystery meat tacos. >> there's a vital role that the federal government place. it's especially vital for students with disabilities. teachers can go to our web site at studentcam.organ on the web site they will find more information about the rules and requirements that they will also find teacher tips, rubrics to help them incorporated into the classroom and more permission about incorporating c-span video

and ways to contact us if they have any further questions. the deadline for this year's competition is january 20, 2016 which is exactly one year away in the next presidential inauguration. >> unless congress acts most federal government agencies will be forced to close on wednesday. today the senate debated a temporary spending measure to keep the government funded until mid-december. majority leader mitch mcconnell and minority leader harry reid debated this continuing resolution on the senate floor. this is 15 minutes. >> a new senate majority came to office this year with a different outlook on government funding from the previous majority. first, we passed a budget. then we worked across the aisle and passed through committee the dozens of bills necessary to fund the government. that's a the first time either of these things have happened in

six long years. our commonsense approach represented real hope that with the necessary cooperation from across the aisle a new and better way of funding the government was actually possible democrats initially gave americans a reason to believe they might be ready to offer that type orders in cooperation. democrats gave bipartisan committee backing to nearly all the dozen government funding bills and a majority of these bills attracted support from allies 70% of democratic appropriations committee members. democrats even bragged about supporting these funding bills in press releases to their constituents. but this was before democrats hatched filibuster planned raid in other words block all the government funding bills in the hopes of provoking a crisis democrats might exploit to grow the irs and the d.c. bureaucracy. as a result you actually saw

democratic leaders declare that they would use procedural moves to prevent the full senate for me than debating the same funding legislation members of their party have already praised in their press releases to their media. democrats even voted repeatedly to block the bill that funds our military. think about that. funds for our military. it would have been cynical enough for our colleagues to block the bipartisan defense funding bill democrats have hailed into win, win, win and eight victory for their states in their press. we are in a state of unparalleled crises threats seem to now blessed by the day them by the hour. yet last week democrats voted again to block a bipartisan bill that funds pay raises and medical care for our troops. it was really extreme. i wish i could say it was the only extreme position our

democratic friends took last week. on thursday senators were given a choice between funding women's health and funding a scandal racked political organization called planned parenthood. republicans stood up for women's health. democrats stood up for their political friends. i think democrats will come to regret their continued privatization of the needs of the far left over women, over military and over seemingly everything else. the question before us now is how to keep the government open in the short term given the realities we face. here is what the president of right to life had to say on the matter. this is the president of the national right to life. their two different roads we can take. one is to insist that no more money go to planned parenthood and cause a government shutdown. which interestingly enough one actually resolve the the funding

of planned parenthood anyway. the other is to take a slightly longer-term approach, taking advantage of the fact that we have the attention of the country has probably never before. so that democrats not prevented the senate for passing the same appropriation bills they voted for and praise we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. but they did. they pursued a deliberate strategy to force our country into another of these unnecessary crises. this leads to funding legislation before us as the only viable way forward in the short term. it doesn't represent my first, second, third or 23rd choice when it comes to funding the government but it will keep the government open through the fall and funded at the bipartisan level already agreed to by both parties as we work on the way forward. and madam president i ask unanimous consent at all times during quorum calls until 5:30

5:30 be charged equally between both sides. >> is there objection? without objection. >> madam president. >> the democratic leader. >> to avert another republican manufactured showdown is before us now. the vote to invoke cloture on a claim continuing resolution keeps the government open and funded. we believe that they should continue on this issue and this is why we voted the way we are going to. following the vote for passage of the clean funding measure sometime tomorrow wednesday that leaves a simple majority. we are on the verge of avoiding another republican sponsored shutdown of the federal government. fortunately cooler heads are prevailing but i would be remiss if i do remind everyone especially my republican colleagues at this last minute minute -- is reckless. we are two days away from a shutdown and why?

because republicans made it their number one priority to undermine women's health keeping the government open and funded as it a concern for these extremist republican party. the republican party leader talking about this though two days ago. he said planned parenthood in i say health for women. understand madam president republicans couldn't get a majority vote on this. couldn't get a majority vote. they were down in the 40s so even republicans think what is going on now is ridiculous. keeping the government open and it is a secondary concern for these extremists and that's too bad. while it appears we have a path to avoid a shutdown are nonetheless concerned about the republican modus operandi by

government always by crisis. remember this is the fifth time in two years that republicans have manufactured a shutdown crisis. two years ago they shut the government down for 17 days. republican shut down the government and we were only able to get ourselves out of that morales because for example in the house of representatives two-thirds of the republicans in the house voted to keep the government closed. unbelievable but that's the way it was. here it is now two years later and we are on the verge of another shutdown. remember this, the fifth time in two years republicans have manufactured an unnecessary shutdown crisis and it is a showdown leading to a shutdown. exactly two years ago a shutdown of the federal government

because of health care. now seven months ago republicans almost shut down homeland security on an immigration issue. the department of homeland security, they wanted to shut it down. it was saved at the last minute. i should say in the last minute. mr. president these are the agencies within this department to protect us, protect us from terrorists, protect us from the many things that happen in our country that we need protection from. this past spring the shut down of key national security intelligence surveillance act. why? they were fighting among themselves. republican leader wanted to go for a certain length of time. it was a fight among them, not among us. they were close to wreaking havoc and they did wreak havoc as the program was shut down for

a while. they shut down the export-import tank and injuring hundreds of thousands of jobs. it's still closed. now where days from another shutdown. it doesn't fear we will sidestep the republican manufactured crisis this week. we still have a long difficult road ahead. the continuing resolution will pass this week but it's a short-term and that funds our government through december 11. the measures really short-sighted. that means within the coming weeks we will be negotiating with the president to avoid another shutdown. we have to find a way to pay our bills to avoid a catastrophic default on their debt. we came within minutes of doing that.

the federal government this great country of ours wouldn't be able to pay its bills. we see the press, we see all the stories about the speaker who stepped down the leader of the republicans over there are joyous. one republican running for president announced it and he was cheering in the person running for president who serves in the senate was part of the cheer. another republican presidential candidate came in the same thing happened. it is hard to comprehend that people are cheering for this government to be closed but that's what they are doing. we shouldn't pay our debt. the republican houses and in a sad state. last week the far right showed they would oppose the speaker. more outspoken than ever and it's a household their leadership elections in the coming days i vote for sensible

leaders present deeply concerned and i came here to the fun friday and said as honestly as i could my respect for john boehner. i think it's unfair that people are piling on. did i always agree with him? no but he never misled me and always told me the way it was. i'm concerned that even those republican leaders who previously claimed -- stand up when it matters the most. come november 1 we have no way of knowing but house republicans will do. this is after their elections to replace leader boehner. we have no idea what they will do. numerous house members have said in the past few days they want to go off the cliff. we need to get to work

immediately to avoid being back here on december 11 facing another republican shut down because one thing is clear. republicans are intending to use it as a political tool to exploit. the american people don't want it seen lots of republican ranks mentioned. our constituents don't want it to turn into a doomsday clock. i invite my republican colleagues to quit governing by crisis and let's put the threat of shutting down to bed right now. let's turn our attention on getting rid of the deep dangerous sequester cuts. i have heard speeches given by the senior senator from arizona someone who knows a bit about the military and he says sequester cuts are terrible. i agree with him. these devastating cuts were never supposed to happen. they were meant to craft a bipartisan budget negotiations. getting rid of sequestration as wide majority support him both chambers. i hope we start working on a

bipartisan budget fix to fix our military to help the middle class and puts her country on for sound economic footing and let's do it without the threat of a looming shutdown. we can do it if republicans that divert us into another catastrophe.

>> when you look at the role that the supreme court is playing in our society now our history series had to have relevance so as we thought about what can we do to give relevance to our current programming series on the court made all the sense in the world. c the court is an equal branch of government. if the third branch of government. it still has fundamental impact on americans. inside this elegant building is a courtroom where decisions are made that impact all of our lives. there are so many incredibly interesting cases in the courts history. we have all heard about roe v. wade. we have heard about brown versus board of education that for some of the people they are just names in the textbook and what we want to do is really talk about the legal side of the cases but the people involved in the cases. they are human beings who felt

so passionately that they are being wronged and their rights are being abridged that they brought their cases to the court. >> i think what people will find the most fascinating about these cases are the personal stories. one of my personal favorites is map versus ohio and the story. they went think when people hear the personal story of this woman in this situation that they will fall in love with his cases that they will feel passionate about what happens in the court and why they matter and why he should care. >> picking 12 cases was a really difficult and arduous task but it was a fun task because we learned a lot but those 12 cases represent our involving understanding of rights in america as you take a look at drugs got the korematsu case and miranda all the way to roe v. wade you learn not only the top history of the country but the evolving rights of america. >> landmark cases historic supreme court decisions produced

in cooperation with the national constitution center delving into 12 supreme court cases that significantly influenced our nation story and our evolving understanding of rights in america live monday nights at 9:00 p.m. eastern beginning october 5 on c-span and c-span3 and is a companion to our new series landmark cases the book. features a 12 cases we have selected for the series with a brief introduction into the background, highlights and impacts of each case written by veteran supreme court journalist tony mauro published by c-span in cooperation with congressional quarterly press an imprint of sage publications incorporated. landmark cases is available for $8.95 plus shipping and handling. get your copy at c-span.org/landmark cases. >> a discussion about the increased involvement of the russian military in the syrian civil war. russia is supplying more troops and increasing military aid to

the bashar al-assad regime. from the washington institute for middle east policy this is an hour and a half. [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon. good afternoon and welcome to the washington institute. welcome to our shriver family, - center in our newly-acquired offices here at 111119 street cred i'm delighted to welcome all of you to this event. i'm rod satloff project at the washington institute. it is a sign of how much things have changed in the middle east that there is a roomful of knowledgeable middle east observers to attend a session in 2015 on the theme russia's

military escalation in serious. this would not have been a topic on anyone's agenda at any point in the last 30, 40 years. how far back should we go but it's very much a topic on the world agenda today. today both president obama and president putin jested with each other at the united nations on this issue throwing barbs back and forthwith i guess each other on their various strategies. only one of them of course is significantly deploying military power inside of syria to affect the balance of power on the ground and that is really what brings us together today to address what drives russian policy in syria and its environs, what impact are the russians doing in syria with the implications that are likely to

be for the broader conflict in syria and its neighbors and ultimately what if anything the united states can, will and should do to address this even more complicated problem than the one we faced a year or two ago. we are very fortunate that the washington institute has on its staff a broad array of expertise that can bring to bear on each aspect of this russia and syria problem that i just referred to and so i am proud to be able to introduce the members of this panel. some of you you may know and some of you i'm going to be introducing here at the institute for the first time. so the order of today's, not exactly the way people are sitting but you will get it very quickly appeared on the far left

is jeff weise. jeff's defense fellow at the washington institute, a longtime analyst at the defense intelligence agency. jeff is going to go into some detail and bring actual facts to bear. i know that may be unusual for some people but the actual facts to bear on what the russians are doing on the ground in syria. second, we are going to turn to and not. and that is our fellow at the washington institute focusing specifically on the russian middle east policy and anna is going to delve into the political and strategic aspects of what the russians are up to and their broader implications. speaking third is going to be andrew tabler tabler. andrews or martin gross fellow here at the washington institute long time syria watcher building

on years of on the ground experience in that country and andrew is going to talk about the diplomacy that the united states is trying to engage in what the status of u.s. efforts are on the ground in the diplomatic arena regarding syria and then forth i'm play -- please introduce fabrice. he is a visiting fellow. he's up professor of political science and fabrice has unique insight based on his years of study of domestic politics inside of syria including a year spent in what hakiya traveling in and around syria in a rather unique set of insight observations and experience that will help round out this i think rather comprehensive discussion of the situation of russian

deployment in syria and its implication for the broader conflict with that i'm going to turn first to jeff and then to the rest of my colleagues. >> thank you rob. all right, this is me. it's interesting to work on the russians in syria now because one of the first crises or situations i worked in the middle east in the intelligence community was a russian intervention in egypt the suez canal war and the challenge by the israelis. the challenge posed to the israelis by the presence in egypt and so on so it's kind of fun and a way to come back to a

situation like this where the russians are actually deploying significant military power into syria. there are a lot of reasons for why the russians would do this. some of it sounds to me like international relations where everything is compartmentalized into niceville packages of reasons to explain behavior but to meet the essential reason here, the proximate reason, the main reason here is to support the regime and by support to the regime i mean the intention to fight on the side of the regime against the regime's enemies and to change the military situation inside of syria. the reasons are useful to think about. it could be debated and being

widely debated even as we speak right now but the main reason they are putting combat horses in significant numbers into syria is to fight and to me that is evident in the nature of their buildup. how are they doing this? they are bringing stuff in by sea. they have created the sea bridge which is ongoing as of today. they have a number of amphibious ships or landing ships involved in this. alligator class and poor pooch a class landing ships. there is one now in the picture in the upper right shows the alligator class ship and bound to the key and may have even arrived. they're also using significant air bridge. they're flying transport aircraft to the russian air force every day may be multiple times a day in some cases into syria. they using a variety their that

allows them to bring in personnel and heavy equipment. a lot of the stuff we think has arrived there probably came by air. most of the stuff coming down is coming from russia and iran. from iran across iraq and into syria and the picture on the lower right is from saturday and it shows an a.m. 124 heavy transport inbound. we are seeing this going as they said ongoing everyday. some estimates have 50 flights so far in there. to give you size and scope of the buildup that's going on. there is no indication they are stopping the airlift and they have also use the airlift to mask the movement of fighter aircraft. they have put fighter aircraft with the transport through the transport aircraft will use its transponder. the fighter aircraft will not

use the transponder. that way they were able to bring in 28 combat aircraft unnoticed at least by many people. i'm assuming the u.s. intelligence community had a better idea that then the people outside of the community but i can't say for sure. the facilities they are using are the main one for the air operation is beside al-assad international air work and what hakiya. it has been significantly upgraded in terms of the logistics facilities they are. improvements to the paths and additional pads for helicopters to be there. it's the main logistics base in terms of the air operation. they have also created a helicopter base at a place called us,, former military storage depot. they have combat helicopters there.

transport helicopters there so they have two airbases essentially operating inside syria and there is now discussion going on in terms of people who look at the stuff that there may be two other air facilities inside of syria. unconfirmed but more may be going on than just what we see in the province. they're also using them to bring in the heavy stuff and the heavy equipment and that's basically the central point of the air bridge o'er the sea bridge, excuse me. ..

on the ground what we believe to be the case are elements the

eighth infantry brigade, a fairly significant combat force for the russians. possible elements of the 363rd 363rd naval infantry brigade, and by elements i mean maybe up to battalion size, maybe also more. not the full big grade. may be headed to be the fell brigade but it's not there yet. they put in t-90 tanks, the most modern tank. nobody in syria has this tank. it will be the best tank on their syrian battlefield unless we put some of our tangs in there. the apc, an amphibious armored personnel carrier associated with naval infantry and it includes the btl82a, and more advanced version of that vehicle. they have two batteries of field artillery, and best estimates

are maybe between 2,000 and 4,000 troops, maybe not that high, but fairly significant number of troops as well. interestingly, they have reportedly deployed the sa-22 sam system, very capable, very modern system. has both gun and missile capabilities, short to medium range, weapon that would be a threat to any aircraft operating in the area. we have not seen the sa2-2 on satellite image ricer at least in the public domain, so -- but is supposed to be there, and we believe there also is a command and control structure. the russians would not deploy those kinds of forces without have something way to coordinate operations between the ground forces and the -- some pieces have been identified in terms of mobile command vehicles, and also there's at least some imagery evidence of me a five

command and control stations inside inside the province. so this is kind of a well-rounded-out capability, let's say. potential missions, done mean they're doing them now, but these are things they could do with that force, in my mind. reconnaissance for sure, that is already underway. we're getting a lot of reporting of russian air force reconnaissance overdifferent over syria, especially in the province. but now we're hearing that they're flying as far as darzor and on the iraqi border and even penetrated iraqi air space in the operations. so, they're collecting information basically on the environment they may have to fight in.

close-air support for sure. the su-25 is definitely a good platform for doing that. they have 12 of them there. that could be important in a lot of battlefields. strike, the su-24's, interdiction, the su-24s in can range across most of syria for sure. and it's a good platform, and also has precision strike capability and so they can hit things on the ground other than towns and cities-especially the syrian air force. on the ground, advising, they're probably already doing that and have been doing it for some time, especially at the higher levels of syrian command. i don't think at the tactical level. imbedding, that's putting the small russian unit into a larger syrian regime unit. they may be doing that. we have some evidence of that in

the province, may have actually put their troops in with the regime forces. security. we're get something reporting that russian troops are deployed in the city. road blocks and pulling internal security missions. a lot of russians now being reported in the hotels and so on in the province. in larger scale they can engage in offensive actions on the ground. that would be the main fighting roll if they get to it. we're also get something reporting that russian special forces troops are active and conducting special forces type missions. >> this is what i sort of think about in terms of where will they operate.

i think what we're talking about is selective employment. the russians, with the size of the force they have now, are not going to go everywhere to fight everybody. they will prioritize missions. go to the priority enemies of the regime. they will fight against the main threat tuesday the regime, which that's isis, jn, or some other element of the rebel forces, and they'll employ packages to do that based on whether the mission is. maybe mostly air initially but also possibly ground forces involved in that. the key areas that i can see right now for them are in northern latakia. and northern hamma. the damascus region, maybe-maybe not because of the -- ahelp 'o. the regime does not want to lose aleppo. they still have a chunk of it.

we have already had some reporting that russian combat forces have been involved in an effort to relieve a regime garrison in the aleppo area. i do it but people are already talking about russian ground forces out on the group. then in eastern holmes, the area of the gas fields, which the rigtime is constantly fighting for, constantly trying to protect from isis. so those are some areas. you can look at almost any point on the syrian geography where the rebels strong as a potential area for the regime forces to show up. the effects i think they would have, or could have. they're not big enough to roll the rebellion back and reconquer all the territory. that's not in the card, at least

for the kind of forces we see now, and i don't think the russians are going to deploy an army into syria, but on certain battlefields, really important battlefields, they could be decisive. for example, if they deploy the kind of force they seem to be developing in syria, i don't think the regime would have lost province. that's the kind over change the forces could make they're built up to the right size. they can increase attrition on opposition forces. part of the -- a good bit of the syrian war is a war of attrition. day-to-day, month-to-month, whatever, wearing down of the other guy's forces. this is the main factor that will determine the outcome of the war. it's the balance the russian forces could shift in favor of the regime.

indirect effects. i think they can raise combat effectiveness of the regime forces. this is through embedding, advising, and son, providing intelligence look at the combat effectiveness of all the forces inside syria. they're pretty well balanced. it's not clear to one group has a big edge in combat effectiveness or military effectiveness over any other so the russians are coming in, they could shift this combat effectiveness or military effectiveness equation. they could raise the morale of the forces or the regime forces and so on. there's a lot of discussion now that in thousands of jihad ys are going to storm the russians and throw them out. maybe not. this is the discretion of the afghanistan scenario being released. personally i tend to doubt it. i don't think the russians are in there for that kind of war.

i think they've learned a lot, and i'm not so sure we'll see that many jihadis eager to engage the russians. and finally, just for some conclusions. it's small but capable joint combined arm force, gives the russians a lot of military options inside syria. my own sense is it's tailored for regime support, not day alreadied to deliver human tear goods, not specifically tailored to fight isis, not tailored to overthrow the syrian regular anytime. it's there to support the regime and fight for it. it can be expanded. what we see now is a matter of slow buildup -- not a slow buildup but a steady and methodical buildup. the russians have the capability to increase the airlift and sea lift and put more weapons in and so on. is a said it can have

significant effects on the battlefield but no one is talking about that i've seen anyway is that it can give the russians a peace of the direction of the war. that is, as the russians have combat fortness there, conducting operations, they're going to be part of the syrian, iranian, heads he, whatever it is, command structure, and this will influence the shape and nature of the war. and my colleagues will address the question of the political effects, but obviously this is already had significant political effects, and i think it will continue, and they may grow. with that, we'll save questions for later. >> thank you very much, jeff. anna. >> thank you. let me start by highlighting just a few points from the speech u.n. general aembolism one surprise in his talk, it's indicative of putin's approach

to the mideast that's consistent with his approach in recent years. one point is he talked about a single center of dominance that emerged in the post cold war world that did not have to reckon with the u.n., and this was a veiled reference to the united states to the west. he talks about what an enorm ms. mistake it ills not to cooperate with assad. and talked about military coups orchestrated. from the outside, which again is a veiled reference to how putin perceives western involvement in international affairs, his belief that so-called revolutions throughout the post soviet space and also protest movement's the middle east have been orchestrated by the west, and with that in mind, let me turn to several goals i think putin has in syria. the first is to deflect from the ukraine crisis, and bring him out of international isolation, by pointing to a common enemy,

the islamic state, saying we may have our differences but global terror is a greater threat and we need to cooperate to work against it together, essentially legitimatizing miss rule. he is also trying to position russia as a great power. one with which the united states has to speak with on equal terms. he has to reduce -- his approach to diplomacy is zero sum. we see president obama say today that we all have a stake in each other's success, putin doesn't see it that way. seems to further continue to conflict in syria by propping up assad and blocking any real solution so the cries and also want odd project russia's naval power beyond the black sea. one -- one of his key priority

us expand its naval presence beyond its traditional presence and this facility in syria will help him and he have seen him conduct military operations over -- he is testing the west. this is also consistent with kremlin behavior. he wants to see how far he can go before there's pushback, and so far there's been none. what i think is really important here is russia's domestic situation. this is what i'd like to turn to for the remainder of my talk. putin annexed crimea from ukraine at a time when his approval ratings were at the low point. still in the majority but low majorities. the crimea -- a downward spiral. the population has been na a statey decline, number of domestic problems and so by pointing out to the national sentiment, bit getting people to rally around the flag, his approval ratings shot up to

80-790%. the problem with doing that is if you're going to embark on this path you need to keep inventing crises, you need to keep the moment going so involvement in syria sits very well with how to do that. in the lock run i think russia's syria adventure could turn out very badly for russia. russia's military forces already have many problems, they're spending is unsustainable. russia could find its military stretched too thin, and put is -- putin is aware of this in may of this year he amended an existing decree on state secrets hump put russia's military losses on the -- this is one way he managed to hide the true number of casualties in ukraine

and will likely do that in syria. the problem with hiding bodies is you can only do that for so long. what is interesting to me is immediately win the news of russia's buildup in syria hit the press, russia's liberal elites unanimously spoke out against what putin is doing and all of them recalled russia's experience in afghanistan. they've may be a different situation but for russians themselves, this invoked memories of afghanistan and how damaging this will be for the country. also don't forget, terrorism is what propelled putin into power. there is series of bombings in moscow on the eve of the first presidential election in 2000, and putin's approval ratings shot up from very low to very, very high. he was a strong leader who stood up against terrorism. so this is not in a sense new

and sits with russia's domestic context. russia is no at strong country. it's gdp dwarfs compares to the west. its population, demographics and so forth. but so for years the west has dismiss russia. the problem is these countries can sometimes be the most dangerous because its oust russia's we canness it's acting aggressively in ukraine and other places and syria. so more broad live what is putin trying to do in the middle east and the region in again, reducing influence of the west and position himself as a contrary to the west. essentially a case of a country that is playing a weak hand but playing very well because there's lack of political will on the part of the west to do anything about and it he has been very successful.

i think we keep seeing that trajectory in near future tour until there are major changes. that's all i have. >> thank you. andrew. >> first of all, welcome to he institute's new space. it's great to be here with all my colleagues at such an interesting time. i'm going to try to tackle a little bit about what we know coming out of diplomatic circles concerning syria, and i think from earlier this year, as the opposition has pushed the assad regime's forces into another what would be described as regime contraction, there's been considerable talk about u.s.-russian convergence on syria. there are lot of reasons for that. in january and april, russian --

the ministry of for foreign affairs held two rounds of peace talks in moscow that failed to yield any results with the last one going particularly badly, and we'll talk about that. so, after this failure and the assad's regime's battlefield failures there was some followup meetings in may, and particularly one between secretary of state john kerry and russian president vladimir putin, that were supposedly about russia and the u.s. moving toward each other on two many issue issues. talk of area of convergence. one was on then flow of foreign fighters going to and coming back from syria, and two was the need to pressure the assad regime into a diplomatic end to the syrian conflict based on assad's transition from power.

the reason why is that during the second peace talks in moscow, in april, russian officials and others flew to damascus and special with president asad ahead of the meeting and asked for two ones. one for -- jaffrey not to head the delegation. the other one was to make more significant confidence-building measures on the release of political prisoners which was requested be a flub of those attending the peace talks from the opposition side. when the peace talks -- the plane plants in moscow and the door opens up and jaffrey gets off the plane. second, during the peace talks, the regime released a few people from jail but not the ones the opposition really want told be released from jail, thus giving the opposition representatives very little diplomatically, ask

and the talks quickly broke down. they were supposed to tackle four different issues and they really didn't get off the ground substantially. so, that is ultimately where -- in terms of tracking this, where the meeting came from with putin and kerry. i if you look at that, now we have a significant, large russian military buildup in syria, designed to now, in terms of what heard from president putin at the u.n., was to fight terrorists and also prop up a legitimate state. the idea is what produced this? so, just to give you a little background. for the past two years, at the invitation of the russian ministry of defense i traveled to moscow to attend their annual security conference, and to engage russian officials and intellectuals on this very subject. you probably noticed didn't

write anything about that after the two trips. the reason was its was very difficult for me to determine what actually was going on. don't think there was anything more sophisticated than there was what i could detect a major difference in the way that different russian policy centers looked at syria. the one most well-known position is that of the foreign ministry, and which was headed by foreign minister lavrov, and referred to putin's statements that basically the russian federation was not waiting until assad and willing to negotiate, and it seemed as if we were heading into another round of these negotiations after president assad was so rigid at the moscow talks in april. but besides those statements

from the ministry of foreign affairs we had a very different narrative and that was coming from the ministry of defense, and they were outlined at the two conferences i attended, and there have been a variety of articles out there, and basically the way it was outlined on a number of pour point presentations on the internet and i encourage you to look at them -- is, one, the post cold world war has been dominated by one power, which anna talk about. two, and i think this goes back actually not just this year but two years -- that the problem is not the arar spring per se. the problem was the u.s. response to the arab spring, and that this response to a're spring was part of a -- what was described on the slides as a policy of color revolutions. and they basically function as the following. these color revolutions get people to fight each other

domestically, the military is used to shoot people of their own country and not a for invader, and that overall, it was a very low-cost way of creating unstable because in the middle of this mix suddenly the united states would ask for a u.n. security council revolution for intervention. this is the intellectual background to real concerns about u.s. intervention in libya. the third part of the argument was that these bases, these broken states where these color revolutions are going on, either, a., create illegitimate government, like in the case of ukraine, or, b., terrorists -- long-term terrorist safe havens, and this fundamentally -- the ministry of defense outlined not in the interests of russia or the international community. it's that point that they moved then to a proproscriptive and

this was referred to as military to military cooperation, basically helping sovereign states shoot your way out of these crises. so, this notice exactly new, not exactly in -- the assad regular anytime has been doing this for some time. basically the argue. was that the basis of intersense should be on -- intervention should be on the case of the sovereign state except in ukraine because the protests were a coup. if you're trying to square syria and russia and ukraine policies, it's based on that. they sigh the assad regime as legitimate, and the government in kiev is illegitimate. all based on how power was taken. i joked at the time that i guess they never observed an assad regime election before. in any case, this division in

russian policy circles were for son identified by two individuals, some nope to this odden. one was the russian academy of sciences, vitali a well known figure, has been to washington a number of times. he was in the military of defense in terms of putting together the conferences. the other intellectual who backed up the, seems the ministry of defense's arguments is of that -- from the institute of middle east studies, well known figure the reason why i say he is backing the ministry of defense positions is because during this year's conference the deputy defense minister called on him from the audience to give a small speech, and during the speech he said that the problem was not the arar spring but a rather the united states' reaction to the arab spring. out of this intellectual and

policy disscours the ministry of defense's view has prepaid and thus we have a significant shift in russia-syria policy with deep implications to the conflict and the middle east as a whole. so, in terms of -- i know we'll get into this in the question and answer session as well -- in terms of constraints, i think we have now pretty serious impediment to the western and regional strategy, to place military pressure on assad in order to induce political concessions that leads to asad's departure. i can't see president assad becoming significantly more flexible now given this intervention, especially -- i'm a big believer after living in syria for a long time, people only make choices when they have to, and have to face a dilemma. don't think assad faces a dilemma of losing power and the community doesn't as well. so that creates some complications.

two, in terms of constraints, great power intervention in syria now makes this i think a global crisis. not that it one before. many of us argued about that. and this is where we get into the recent discussions between russian ministry of defense and the pentagon over what are called deconflation because of the real risk of the military -- united states or anyone el el could ruin into conflict with russian forces and that could lead to military conflict if not kept in check and also complicates diplomacy on syria because verifies that washington and moscow are on very different pages in terms of the end state in syria. the discussion of whether they see the conflict differently, that's over inch terms of opportunities, russia, like iran, who is also intervened in

syria, i think they're now very -- i think they are wedded to bashar al-assad and the regime whether they like it or not. once you get involved in the kind of capabilities that jeff was outlining it's difficult to pull back without significant embarrassment and other implications. now, during this, it is possible that they could bring their influence to bear on assad if the russian position in syria were called into question or under attack be some forces that -- or operations that jeff downlead, talking about jihadis graph iting toward the russian forces. it's hard to see the russians not escalating. the question is, if there is any daylight between -- in terms of russian thinking between assad and the syrian regime, russia talks about avoiding state collapse, but essentially we're talking here about the partial preservation of the syrian regime, and this is where it's not clear.

from iranian circle outside hear the regime is an inverted. you remove the capstone and it falls apart. i its unclear if the row russians see it the same way. some want to preserve the regime at the expense of assad and his family. others fear the way the regime is constructed is indeed -- makes it galvanized or makes it -- gives structure that resists a peaceful transition. i think russian intervention will not end the war, but there could be a silver lining. russia could help stabilize some areas under the regime's control in order to avoid the injureddist take over of damascus. i'm. no say they're going to take over damascus, i always doubted that. but on the bright side, if the united states is worriedes less