as the program goes. but there's so much more work to do, and we have always said this will be an incremental process, and we're already -- we had a hearing last week in our committee about next steps for acquisition, and there will be steps after next year, too. so we're focused on building on that, conscious of the fact that we have to improve our acquisition process but it also

has to too its job every debut we're overhauling it. so it's not like you can say stop everything you're doing. we're going to rearrange this stuff. it still has to function day-to-day. >> as we reach the end of our session here, i noticed you were presiding as the new house speaker was sworn in, and in the buildup for his taking the speakership, taking the gavel and with foamer house speaker john boehner on his way out, congressman ryan had a lot of rhetoric about a new chapter, for bipartisan discourse, hopefully moving away from the division wes have seen, particularly with the house republican caucus moving forward. what's your confidence that thil be the case, we'll see more bipartisan discourse, particularly for you at a critical time when it comes to

national security and can he divisions in republican caucus between the fiscal hawks and the defense hawks? >> i have no doubt paul is sincere and he is focused on having all members be able to have more input into the process. now, take the defense authorization. the senate went through a regular process, passed a bill, conference that lasted several months. so any member had the opportunity to contribute. that's the model he wants to use. one thing that dedisturbs me the boast e most in an attempt to have bipartisanship is what the president did with our bill. we're about to send back an ndaa

exactly like the one he vetoed, minus 5 bill, but vetoed it to use it as leverage or political bargaining chip for this other stuff that could not happen within the defense authorization bill. it is -- the web site wrote it is historic but not in a good way. so one of my challenges is how can we repair some of that damage, because for 53 straight years, congresses of both parties have passed and presidented signed into law this bell, one of the last vestiges of true bipartisanship with all members participating there was huge damage by the president's veto, using our bill as a political bargaining chip. so, in the coming year, one, i think, of my biggest challenges is how to repair some of that because regardless of who the next chairman will be, who the next president is going to be,

it's really important for the country to have the bipartisanship on national security. it's historic what has been done in the past few weeks but we have to make sure it's the anomaly, not the rule going forward. >> i want to push back on that a little bit. you and senator john mccain both acknowledged that you weren't huge fans of the use of overseas contingency operations to increase defense spending and you were looking for a more long-term deal. was the veto necessary for leverage to get the big four to the table, to get this kind of bug agreement? >> no, because -- >> isn't this what you wanted. >> you had to have the appropriations bill signed anyway, so that is the forcing function, actually this week happened to be the debt limit but you had the appropriation bills coming up december 11th. that's the forcing function and we had a provision in the bill, section 1501, that says if the

base increases, then we'll just move this oco over to the bass and it adjusts automatically. so my point is there was nothing that could be done to the ndaa that fixed this problem. it was because of the debt limit and the appropriation bills that it got fixed. we knew that was coming. but, but, the president threatened 41 essential authorities, including things like combat pay and so forth, which will not be authorized after the end of the year without a defense authorization bill. he threatened the acquisition reform, the personnel reform, the requirement that the dod and va have a joint form -- form larry to treat ptsd, all of that to make a political point, and again, "washington post," "wall street journal," said it never happened before so we have repair to be done because of the damage that was caused to bipartisanship over that action.

>> given that -- let's talk about the damage done to bipartisanship. also, both sides, democrats and republicans, used that veto threat that was made good on to accuse each other of holding the military hostage. we hear that phrase ban bandied about a lot. saying this a kris cal time, can't be holding the military hostage. not just the damage done as you refer to with the veto, but within congress. so, moving forward, now that we have this budget agreement, when you refer to the damage done, do you think this means that going forward in this sort of waning days of the obama administration, it's going to be difficult to work together between the executive and congress when it comes to national security or does this clear the way, get some of the bad blood out of the way so real action can be taken in the

last -- >> that's what i say. i hope that what we have seen the last couple of weeks is an anomaly, not the rule moving forward. my sense is, the obama administration is clearly on their last year. democrats and the media and everybody else will increasingly pay less attention to them as more people focus on who is going to succeed the president, and that gives us in congress the chance to re-establish the bipartisanship that we have always had. remember, our bill came out of committee by a vote of 60-2, and the two was one republican and one democrat. so, that is the tradition, that's the way with everybody participating, we have had bipartisan bills in the past. it's only when it became politicized in the large political debate it started to be more partisan. i want to go back to the 60-2 votes, and again, it's not because of me. it's because of the country. and if we're going to send men

and women to syria, or afghanistan, or africa, or anywhere else, they deserve to know that the whole country is behind them, as reflected by the elect leaders. >> i'll try to get one on 2016 as we talk about national security leadership you. mention people will be looking less and less to the obama administration, perhaps looking forward. now we have america's longest war, just got longer, sort of indefinitely. our president's extended in afghanistan. we have the special operations troops going to syria. the war against the islamic state in iraq and syria, that won't be wrapping up any i'm soon. all -- any time soon. all of to the wars will be inherited by whoever inherits the white house. in republican field, there's certainly a milked spectrum of national security experience. do you have concerns with that? are you confident that moving forward, whoever may inherit the white house, is going to be able to really shape these wars and

develop the kind of strategy that you have been calling for? >> yeah, have tremendous concern about it. that's why my number one cite year is who would be the best command erred in chief given the mess he or she is going inherit. dr. kissinger testified in front of the senate we have never before had this many complex national security threats facing us all at once. you mentioned several areas where we have combat, but in addition to that you have this general perception that they u.s. has been in retreat, and that has encouraged aggression from russia, china, iran, among others. so, there will be an enormous challenge for the next president, whoever it may be, and again issue think the number one criteria is who would be best suited to deal with those challenges. >> i think that's a good note to end on. looking forward here for

national security leadership, and thank you so much. >> thank you for having me. [applause] >> in also more than an hour the house veterans affairs committee will hear testimony on the alleged misuse of funds over the va's program to relocate workers. that hearing starts live at 7:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. and both chambers of congress are in session this week. the senate returns tomorrow to begin debate on a water quality protection bill, with a vote to advance the measure scheduled for 2:30 p.m. eastern. see the senate live here on c-span2. and the house gale in today for work on a number of bills, club one on homeland security, tomorrow debate begins on the long-term transportation and highway funding measure with current funding set to expire november 20th. later this week, possible work on 2016 defense programs, after the president vetoed the defense

authorization measure on october 22nd. and early 'er today, paul ryan gaveled the house into session for the first time since becoming speaker. here's that now. >> house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father crowe conroy. >> let us pray. god of the universe, we give you thanks for giving us another day. bless the members of this assembly as the set upon the work of these hours of these days. help them to make wise decision in a good manner and to their responsibilities deadly with hopes for a bet ever future for

our greet nation. deepen the faith, widen their simple this. heighten their aspirations and give them the strength to do what ought to be done for this country. during this time of transition, and the speaker's office, may all members renew their hope of a productive, dynamic within the house, and with your grace, be willing to reset relationships both within and between party conferences. may your blessing, oh god, be with them and with us all this day and every day to come, and may all we do be done for your greater honor and glory, amen. >> the chair has candy the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces approval thereof. the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentle woman from north carolina, miss fox. >> please join in the pledge to

our wonderful flag. i pledge allegiance to the flashings of the united states of america, and to the republic for which is stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> the honorable speaker house of representatives, dear speaker ryan, i write to inform you that i have notified ohio gov john kashich of my resignation for the u.s. house of representatives effective 11:59:00 p.m. october 31, 2015. at this hour my heart is full with gratitude. i wish to thank the people of ohio's eighth district for giving me the opportunity to serve. my staff being lynchpins of the service. and my colleagues for honoring me with their trust by electing me their speaker. together we banned earmarks, cut

spending by more than $2 trillion, made the first entitlement reforms in nearly two decades and made possible for kids in washington, dc's toughest enableds to go to great schools. put another way, we did the right things for the right reasons and good things happen. hate been an honor to serve. signed, sincere rye, john away boehner. >> the chair announces to the house that in light of the resignation from the gentleman from ohio, mr. boehner, the whole number of the house is 434. >> that was just a look at speaker paul ryan gaveling the house into session for in the first time this morning. the house gaveled in earlier today to work on a number of bills, including several on homeland security. we'll see vote on some of those at 6:30 p.m. eastern today. some the senate returns tomorrow to begin debate on a water quality protection bill, with a

vote to advance that measure scheduled for 2:30 p.m. eastern. see the senate live here on c-span2. >> all persons having business before the honorable supreme court of the united states draw near do give their attention. >> this week on c-span's landmark cases, we'll discuss the historic supreme court case of shank vs. the united states. in 1917, the united states entered world war i. patriotism was high. and some forms of criticism of the government were federal offense. charles shank work was general secretary of the philadelphia associatist party, handed out and mailed leaflets against the draft. >> this is the flier produce bid charles shank in 1917. 15,000 copies were produced and the point was to encourage men who were liable for the draft not to register. the language in the flier is firey. it equates conscription with

slavery and calls on every citizen of the united states too resist the conscription laws. >> he was arrested and tried and found guilty under the espionage act. shank then appealed and the case went directly to supreme court. find out how the court ruled. that's coming up on the next landmark cases live tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span3, and c-span radio. for background on each case while you watch, order your copy of the landmark cases companion book. it's available for 8.95 plus shipping at c-span.org/landmark cases. >> now, back to defense one's

summit on national security issues. this time we hear from john carlin and army chief of staff, general mark milley. >> is chief of the national security division at the justice department. they do all of the national security prosecutions and handle intelligence matters from the legal perspective of doj, nick rasmussen, since 2014, has been the leader of the national counterterrorism center, previously worked at the white house in -- as an adviser to the president on national security. both of you gentlemen lead agencies that were born out of the 9/11 commission report. i wonder if you can give us a perspective, 15 years removed, how you see throw of your agencies -- the role of your agencies as they have evolved? >> thank you. it's great to be here.

thanks to defense one. the national security division was created in 2006 as a result of recommendations from a post 9/11 commission. the idea was simple. it was to make sure that not only did the legal law come down that hat prevented intelligence sharing between intelligence communities and law enforcement and vice versa, but also that culturally the lawyers who work on intelligence problems and prosecutions, sat side-by-side, and so the division was created so there would be a one-stop-shop at the department of justice, the first new litigate little division in 50 years, where where the full range of national security problems could be tackled inch doing that it meant looking at legal problems in a way where, whether it was department of defense, fbi, cia, nsa, that we viewed the problem as one that was intelligence-driven, meaning we would look at what the

intelligence showed the threat was, and then that our solutions, our legal solutions, should be tailored against the threat to disrupt it. so it was not necessarily a terrorism prosecution. that occurred after the fact. but a wind was using the full range of legal tools to make sure that analysts and professionals like those that work for nick in national counterterrorism center has a full view of the intelligence picture, and then once they showed what the threat was, the operators and law enforcement professionals across the government had the full range of legal tools at disrupting it. i think in terms of where we are now, we have gotten very good at applying that model against the terrorist threat. so the idea is we sit together, almost every day, and in the national security council and the situation room, and you'll have a terrorist or terrorist group, and we'll each go around the table with all of the different authorities and expertise we bring to bear to say, how do we make their lives

most difficult? how do we disrupt and stop them overseas before they can do an attack? we realized looking at the success we had against the terror threat wed w needed to getter play that model to cyber security threats. so we re-organized the department of justice and the division to do things like train prosecutors in every u.s. attorney's as in the country to happen that which is on the classified side, sensitive sources, methods, threats, and on the other hand, learn about bits and bites and laws that apply to computer hacking, like commuter fraud and abuse act, electronic communications privacy act, and send those trained prosecutors back out to all 94 u.s. attorney's offices and at the same time as the fbi issued an edict, that said, thou shalt share what had formally been on the intelligence side

with these now specially trained lawyers. the idea is not necessarily that leads to criminal prosecutions in all cases but that by now having these lawyers with the full range of set, look at what the intelligence shows the threat is, we can get creative at increasing the costs of. detecting and deterring and disrupting. >> nick? >> evan, thank you also and thank you, defense one, for inviting me to join you today. last year at nctc, the national counterterrorism center, we had a chance to look back and celebrate, take note of our ten-year anniversary. as you noted in your opening, evan, nctc was create out of the 9/11 experience, specifically out of recommendations offer bid the 9/11 commission, and then incorporated in legislation by the congress itch think ten years on, the fundmental weakness in our system that the intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act was

designed to address, the sharing of information, we can look with some degree of satisfaction at the progress we have made in making sure that all of the relevant information in intelligence information is available to the united states government is brought together in one place and fused, understood, saysed and analyzed, and that happens every day at nctc. that is not to say we have got 'across every hurdle we have closed every gap or addressed every vulnerability we have, but i would say i feel very, very good that the systemic shortfalls, challenges we faced at the time of 9/11, have been addressed successfully. i will say, going forward, though, as we look to the kind of information we're dealing with today in today's terrorism environment, the challenges are still there they're still in some ways growing. my analysts who come from across -- my analysts at nctc from across the intelligence community, contributes -- have

access to the full array of intelligence information as was the design of reform, but increase leg we're finding that relevant information exists in the nonclassified world, in the open source world in the world of social media, and the next great leap for nctc, and indeed i argue for the non security community, will be finding new and powerful ways to leverage our access to open source information, information that is out there nor anybody to look at, but is out there in such volume that looking at it with the degree degree of analysis and rigor you would want is a challenge. >> one to thing that happened this weekend is a russian airliner crashed and one of the first things we have heard is a claim by purported members of isis, claiming they were responsible for bringing down this airplane. is there anything you can tell us from what you have seen this weekend shalt sheds some light on this?

>> i have seen the claims isil did make about potentially carrying out action that brought down the russian airliner, but i can say at this point, we have nothing that we have seen in intelligence to corroborate a specific nexus to terrorist activity. you'll notice i said at this point because it's an unfolding picture. the days sinned the tragedy he wave already reach oust and tried to collect as much intelligence information as we can. >> john, one of the interesting cases that you have -- you are responsible for recently our -- tell the audience about it and why it was groundbreaking for the justice department. >> the -- theser allegations laid out in a complaint, and then i'll -- the defendant will have the right to defend himself. this groundbreaking case. the first of its kind, the first

time we have seen what we have long said we would see. so this is a case where an individual is charged, both with hacking, with violation of the computer privacy and abuse act, and with providing material support to a terrorist group and it's particularly important because it shows the complexity of the new threat we face and while, one of the key lessen yo post 9/11 was to make sure we got better at sharing went the government, as this threat morphed to one that is done through cyber space, our next leap has to be sharing not just within government but the private sector and back. >> plain lange, we're talking about cyber terrorism. >> yes. this is a case of cyber terrorism, someone who used cyber-enabled means to help a terrorist group. here's what he did as alleged. farezi went and hacked into a u.s. company and when he attacked the u.s. company, what

he stole was personal identifiable information, like over 100,000 personally identifiable names, social security numbers-et cetera. and this is important because from the point of view of the company, what they saw looked like traditional criminal activity, and when they tried to kick him off the system, what he did was threaten them as we often see, hackers who ex-extort and sid if you kick me off your system, if you don't pay me $500 throughbit coin and let me back on to your system, i'm going release these names and identifiers in a way that embarrassed you. so looks like a classic criminal hacking extortion type of case. what the company would not have known is that on the back end that this individual was then providing and in touch with a terrorist group in syria, isil in one of their lead hacking figures, and he was providing that name that included identifying information about

military personnel and their families to the terrorist group, that was cull through the data and focusing on those who are military personnel or others, posting it, through twitter, through u.s. providers, in a way that called upon people all over the world, particularly the united states to kill the individuals whose personally identifiable information they put online. this shows the threat we're facing today you. have parise a, goes to ma slay to hack into a u.s. company to provide information to a british guy who is in syria to use for a terrorist group that projects it back into the united states uses u.s. technology, and essentially free services, twitter and others, to call for these people to be killed. and although this is the first unfortunately it won't be the last, using this type of threat. >> how easy was it to figure out where this was actually coming from? >> i think it's a good point here. when it came to -- we weren't

doing the investigation and attribution and bringing resources we have to bear, to not just figure out general my who did it but exactly who did and it how, and this is an example of the fact that we can do that, and that although you may think you are anonymous and we can't put you behind the keyboard, we can. parise was arrest bid the malaysians pending extradition to the u.s., because we were able to work together and use information, whether collected by the intelligence community and law enforcement to figure out exactly who did it, then to look across our law enforcement tools and hold the individual responsible. >> and one of the people he is alleged to have been in touch with and passing information to is a hacker by the name of husain, british citizen, one of the most prolific recruiters for isis on the internet. he was killed in a u.s. strike. how does that relate to your

case? how did that affect your case? >> so, i won't -- kick over to nick for a description of husain. but in terms of our case it's alleged in the complaint that he passed this information over to husain, and in terms of him providing support to a terror group that's correct one of the acts. >> i guess what i would say i it that husain proved to be one of this individuals taking advantage of modern technological tools not only engage in activity you describe as hacking, but for the purposes of identifying individuals inside the united states, inside western european countries, inside countries all around the world, who might sympathize or affiliate with isil, and carry out attacks locally in the name of the terrorist group operating in syria and iraq. so even though he is sitting in syria and iraq, he is communicating virtually with a

set of extremists around the world and trying to instigate, inspire, prompt, trigger, violent activity by those individuals here in the united states and other places around the world. that's a new paradigm in terms of the terrorist model. i call it a significant innovation in the terrorist play books. makes it much more rick for law. and intelligence to get in the middle of that conversation to interrupt that potential threat...

>> spent. >> anand this year alone over ted case is linked to individuals and it made me too hard to travel overseas so kill someone at home. ted cases right now the fbi director says we have investigations open in all 50 states who were brought criminal cases in 25 different jurisdictions. behalf as a terrorist threat like this before of the case is the broad as well as different demographics. the other that is most troubling is 21 and under.

tuesday that the read driven by a demographics that come in connection is tied to social media briefing that is why we see the cases trenton area again her - - under in yonkers. >> we heard from the fbi director the number of prices recruits is down dramatically six over the past three months tuesday he is no longer talking to people cruz social media.

>> i will be a little more cautious to draw that conclusion there is no doubt over the pace and americans are urged discovered to join in the conflict but i would argue for that to persist over into next year that the trend has reversed itself. while we certainly looked as seller with a unique set of skills the way he was reaching a to populations, no way would i suggest that isis doesn't have other individuals that could reach into this country with a partner countries with this type of defect. i have asked my analyst quite often is there a natural ceiling from those

homegrown extremist and we don't know the answer yet. to seem to have injected new life and energy into that homegrown violent extremism. but to give new life and energy by isil. >> with that view that you are concerned about of the homegrown terrorists am i right? >> yes. it continues to run the gamut that they are attracted to other terrorist groups that are attracted to other forms of extremist ideology but isis has injected new life in energy because of the message with a unique way they can

communicate. >> where the united states to carry out anti-isis operations and for turkey to do more traveling to syria and iraq can you tell of there is a change of the westerners that of the word across the border? >>. >> it is the too early to tell bottom-line answer we often have lagging indicators to say what somebody did when year-ago but i will say i have seen

encouraging signs with the capability in will to get into the complex known to provide support however we can with advice and assistance line issues like border security where appropriate. our partners understand it is a problem that they face as well. turkey has experienced attacks from isil or isil inspired individuals so we have a shared interest to get more out of it. >> what changes are being brought to your office? >> in with those individuals

under radicalized overseas through social media event to ruth disrupt them through the criminal-justice system. in order to feed this threat it would require the all tools approach the you cannot give these terrorist a safe haven overseas to plot and plan whether the united states our allies and partners many to keep pressure of the rise we're playing constant defense in those platforms are used in there are reasons why

knowing that they are targeting with the radicalizing message to call upon those of the platforms to help us keep those being exploited by terrorists. >> number of times of the data coming out of syria of the refugees either they have a passport that allows them to come here so how does that change in the past year? >> if you look back at 5918 months ago with the board focused engagement we start from the intelligence deficits it has certainly

shrunk the size of the intelligence collection apparatus and certainly the downsized to you depressants lead to a less complete picture in iraq when we were so heavily engaged on the ground with our partners as about that chaotic wartime in beirut -- environment it simply means starting different from the intelligence pitcher. to enhance the intelligence collection of a better picture. said to be another conflict zones of the counterterrorism operations

after spending several years building the intelligence capability to pay off over time. in iraq and syria lose more the front and then the back end as he tried to engage in the refugee population the information we bring to bear is only as good as we have. for what is going inside syria and iraq where isil is in control. >> the fbi director has talked about having to move resources to follow people and monitor 24/7 with a great deal of concern that

something may happen this summer. >> and uh collection across the intelligence community and not in the field knocking on doors. but that period you described earlier this year as we talked about earlier specific isil individuals reaching into the homeland to identify people at is analogous to seek them to carry out terrorist acts inside the united states. that model was showing up in

volume taxing our resources at of all potential social meeting interactions to determine which interactions as a threat content. or if they are consuming extremist material. >> with the prosecutors may have secure video teleconferences to brief the prosecutors in the field to prepare them for what they could see coming to show how the threat was morphing and hit inside our shores. twerking 24/7 to obtain the information and if that

meant getting the property authorities to bring case after case in the unprecedented fashion that the fbi and local law enforcement would need to disrupt the threat. >>. >> it is too early to tell the last couple of months it will spike and go down slightly. >> if he looked at this point over the 18 month period when we have used that intensity as well with the street veteran chicago

so that was left to the individual that was left in them by but but then to get radicalized we have not seen something like this before to go into the criminal system visits is necessary to work as hard to prevent the loss of innocent life so to maintain that pace to work on the long-term solutions to keep terrorists overseas to get in direct contact of those 18 year-old inside united states to lead them down this path. part of that is educating

them parents and community leaders are not aware there are teenagers in the basement talking to a terrorist online. that is not ready pnc and. >> but with the air strike they just wonder if they were making any progress in to be both called to talk to a future president. how long do you see this fight going on? >>. >> countering non the but isil never with the international coalition, we did so of a clear idea is to

take time to pay off looking to empower local partners to identify broad and wide is simply wasn't a case in iraq with one senior cadre of leadership but the efforts would be quite a bit more comprehensive than that. to be ups and downs along the way. and then to push back of the battlefield to have ups and downs. we had some success to work with local partners and to hold the major urban areas for the campaign.

but to say this would take years to accomplish but i am not surprised we are where we are. >> what would you say? >> so deliver that process i think what we see now that the focus is protecting individuals here but if you look at the numbers or percentage rise with the smaller version in the same threat. so whether it goes back one year ago to the united nations resolution and to be

used as a foreign terrorist fighters leading over 20 countries that will take time and sending prosecutors out later to help write the laws of the books and write the lessons the we have learned here in the united states. >> with this narrative the international cooperation is something unprecedented. even with nontraditional intelligence partners in we have found ways to talk and share in communicate.

>> thank you for this conversation. and also for listening. we appreciate. [applause] >> please welcome the chief staff of the united states army. [applause] >> setting army priorities to manage ground read i am pleased to have the general with us the 39th chief of army staff here with me today. is mitt the army forces command but to be a

commanding general and deputy commander in afghanistan to have two children in hainaut he was not of late because he is a red sox fan. [laughter] >> too soon? >> when you took over in august with the changeover ceremony you said the half to fight if we do not maintain our commitment on the sea or on the ground they will forever lose the

precious gift of our freedom. why did you feel the need to say that that moment? >> it was in touch shot across about but if you want to live in peace it is important to maintain military strength united states is a global power that we have to be on responding to a broad range from humanitarian assistance from one end of the spectrum with the competitors of the great powers if we don't maintain capabilities to

balance that is to put yourself at risk. >> with the $5 billion the military will have to take is part of the budget deal will hurt. is that part of a new talk about? >> freedom is not free. with this entry in terms of sacrifice to maintain our way of life it is inexpensive and denver many times to four the lifting more expensive to fight is to fight and lose. so to engage in the armed conflict somewhere it is our american interest.

so to do that is a very expensive proposition to maintain equipment to have the best that money can't buy. we do not want a level playing field. >> recently i had an opportunity to go to iraq to go to jordan to afghanistan in europe angeles last week i got back from another trip from europe with all the chiefs of the army staff of the european armies so there

is quite a few issues then of them are sacred. there is a strategic issue going on for quite some time with the radical terrorism in its current form of isis bid has been up there for a while to lend itself to any easy solution. that has given us a charge to adjust the strategy is suggesting our approaches but specifically isis is a problem right now if you

move into europe is growing serious and more serious. not just assertive and they illegally seized cry me again have attacked the ukraine with a sovereign nation that is unjust assertive behavior to increase in pace with a wide variety of other activities. i don't know russia's intent with recent behavior police

to the sevener year since 2005 in that timeframe i have reorganized the military to increase the capabilities to what john aggressive form policy. aggressive form policy. >> i will interrupt on russia. is the bigger threat the nicest? >> i said i consider russia of the number was a threat to the united states the reason i said that is twofold but in terms of capability it has the only capability to destroy the united states of america others have nuclear-weapons but none as many as russia

and to be matched with some sort of intent it is hard to find future intent but one way to look at that is past behavior from the fall of the berlin wall russia was not demonstrating to knowledge to have aggressive form policy against other countries. since 2008 russia has. in the aggressive manner what he will do next i am not sure but it announced or predictions of the future the nuclear capability is

significant that is the number one threat to the united states. >> key and put them in a category? >> there reason behavior of russia is adversarial to the interest of the united states. >> should we be sitting at the same table with them? >> you have to approach that that strength and balance with a current respect to russia. pour russian aggression to stanford where that manifest itself. but on the upside to have

now reached of common interest with united states or nato for those that have the common interest so it is not just a calculation. >> could they be rationed in the ground war? the neck cavity hesitant to predict that it is illogical once it starts in goes in a direction that is not predictable but that is good enough to deal with anything russia has. . .

>> some of that i'm not going to share in public but i would characterize ukrainians as desiring a continued military support by the united states, continued political support economic support. they are a proud people. they have been sovereign for 25 years and they are determined to remain a free and independent country. >> with me ask you about the 50 special operators were being sent to syria. what is their mission exactly? >> as i understand it, they are there to