framing comments. now when we talk about energy security, it's really not just oil security any more. in the u.s. we're talking about comprehensive energy security, the security of the grid the stability of the grid the resilience of the system, oil is still part of that, but it's more of a comprehensive picture. the second reality and political reality is that we can't talk about ways to increase domestic production without talking about the environment and the consequences that come with it. it's two sides of the same count and we will not have a reasonable political conversation about any of these issues unless we deal with both of those. that may mean as we try to grow the productive bait that we have to deal with issues like methane. right now the polarization of the debate leads to paralysis. also avoiding complacency. being self sufficient, not caring about the middle east,

and that's an understandable perspective if you're looking ahead sixth months. this is not the time to drop the strategic agenda. we should be thinking about what will happen when we come out of the cycle. right now with things like low interest rates a light jpgs competitive advantage, this is the critical time to act. there are a lot of suggestions in the book, probably hundreds of them but i pulled ten that are still relevant right now that i think we ought to think about. we had to take care of business at home before we take care abroad. but there are five steps domestically that remain important. the first is investing in infrastructure. this is really the time as we're building our economy where we're investing in a smarter grid, or a safer grid, but also building out the energy transportation system for the country. we have great production and it's not close to the command

centers. we need a system of pipelines to move product to the southeast move oil east to west. and along with that, most of that will happen for private sector investment and there is a lot the government can do to expedite that infrastructure. you also have to think regionally. it's not just us.s. there is an enormous amount of resilience. the ability to help each other in the case of energy to have reserves over the border. that's important. the second is that we suggest in the book and there is a huge consensus, is market based approach. larry summers had a different version that came out a little while ago. we think revenue neutral is the easiest to do, but a market based approach says we deal with this issue, we create a level

playing field, and we have predictability. the third is to continue investing on the key bottle nexts, that is battery storage and sequestration. it is a key for coal, a huge rourt worldwide. in 2040 it is projected. it might be high efficiency boilers. but we have to deal with coal, so that rnd agenda needs to be sustained. the fourth fourth is to harden the productive base. making sure that we can sustain the growth we had in oil and gas, the biggest boom for our foreign policy that we have had in decades. it has given us norm capability. we have to make sure that when we come out of this low price cycle that we have the ability to sustain that so we don't go

back to import dependency. we thought about it in 2011 and said it in 2012, to liberalize exports of natural gas and crude oil. a lot has been done on the imported gas side. crude is really next. even the issue is when demand picks up and we're below margin, will they participate in that rise? will they be able to produce the supply and meet global demand or not. and that means we have to join the global economy in the way that others do. so rather than saying if you lifted the band today we would not have much exports. now when it is close to zero. we should think about how that is important going forward. also when gasoline prices will rise, and they have nowhere to go up but, but they will slow that rate of growth.

and that is -- the fifth one i think, is to address the climate repercussions of increased production. that comes down to methane and the d.o.c.s. they're thinking how they will regulate through methane. we need to think about global production and gas prices without acknowledging it will have an impact on the climate. we will do it in the smartest and safest way. it has to have a concrete man manifestation manifestation. the first of our recommendations is the boom abroad. it is about the technology and the regulation. you would be surprised or maybe not about the great concern in european countries. people worry about their water and air. there are ways to do this. we have tremendous practices at

the state level. we should be teaching that to others and i think in this hemisphere next, the two top candidates and it is an enormous help for paris. if you have serious climate reduction, it will come from substitution from natural gas from coal and from diesel. i think the more that we can make gas cheaper, we forget that gas is here but not cheap anywhere else in the world that remains important. creating a competitive market in oil and gas, really, part of that is exports, but a lot of it is the european agenda. what are we going to do to make a real integrated market in europe. we can't deliver more l and g to europe right now. but if you could sell it, if you had a real competition policy if you could not buy the capacity and use it there would be space for other supply. it is really helping the

europeans help themselves. that is a diplomatic agenda for us and top of the order. and russia and youukraine is the reason why. the pending implosion is a big hit on central america. we talked about that here before, but they have extremely high electricity prices. uncompetitive, and a lack of finance that would blow a hole in all of their budgets. we have to help them convert to use gas, and integrate renewables that will cut emissions and electricity prices and it will be a sweetener and it is something we can do. africa will be helped by low prices and gasoline but it harmed by the lack of resource revenues. helping africa get access to electricity is an important agenda. some of that is distributed.

other resources. but some of it is base load as well. for them it is also a conversion from coal to gas. in asia a highly insecure area from a resource point of view, exports help in that agenda too. one is whether we ought to get a two for. one to help asia get better oil security, and to help ourselves repair and renovate the spr by thinking about taking some of what we have in the reserve and selling other countries special drawing rights to access. we have more oil than we ahead to, but don't think we should sell it off or make it go away. we could give other countries the right to purchase draw down down rights. and the final recommendation is a process one. we're in washington. you have to have a process

recommendation. it is not a kpre hen si energy policy which we don't and shouldn't have. it is still a hodgepodge and still a competition of agencies. i think president obama had a great idea with his counsel on energy and climate change. you have to deal with those finishes together and you can't wag the dog from the tail. it and all of the efforts, you have to have white house leadership to pull these folks together. and an agency can't lead it the secretary of energy can't lead the whole government. you have to have white house

leadership on climate and neither one of them should be silent. >> i will just ask a question of our panelist and look forward to questions and comments from the audience. the question is, in low pressuring to the recommendations that david gave to us are there any others that you would add to or any comments that you would add on to david's list in the contest of the following question. we're talking about low oil prices. some people feel they will be here for a longer period of time. if that is the case, does that shed any different kind of light on the kind of strategic opportunities or the proposals they have sent forward? shall i ask for comments from -- >> i was going to comment on the assumption of low oil prices for a long period of time --

>> but it's a question not an assumption. >> no nothing -- nothing cures low prices like low prices. i expect that there is a problem related to market operations that eluded that agenda, and that is markets left to their own devices and likely to exacerbate -- we can see it in the shelving of projects that would be bringing new supply on in the framework. and unless there is some concern of that, which is hard to generate in a period of low oil prices, the markets will be sight and there will be inevitably an energy security problem on the horizon. >> i fully agree i think the

main impact in the rest of the energy panorama is a show of -- is how to assure that we keep long term programs with a short term market reality. i want to make another comment. i think that you have highlighted and you're absolutely right about the regulations that you have, and that you have experienced -- i think that this goes beyond. of course i'm going to do a pitch. from a perspective we have of course the mechanisms of -- to solve the controversies and we cannot. this goes far beyond.

i think that one of the important parts of this is the energy chapter. and we should -- this issue of being together on one of the biggest challenges that we have which is russia and ukraine. it should push us to work and not to be hijacked by the exception of france or by how you measure. that we measure it through the water. you know, it just -- i'm not sure that, if it was this is, we cannot let this -- it is geopolitical, first. it is to be hijacked by these issues. i think that working on the

energy chapter could be good. >> it is an interesting point, it is about the low oil price cycle. i'm curious also. i remember in 1998 when oil was $10 and the people were panicking and it was not more than a year and a half before it went up from $10 to $18 to $25. and the swing from 2008 was fast as well. it turns quickly quicker than we think. and i agree we need to be prepared for it. how long do you think it will last? >> that is a question that you don't leek to be asked. >> i think there are good reasons to think that you can find stability in the market for a period of time, could be an extended period of time. in a $70 to $85 range.

if you want to debate the adjustment it is another issue. i think there is something very new about the revolution that has a lasting impact and it is hard to summarize it. i will do my best. we typically think of a conventional oil well exaggerated by reservoirs in deep water, or found in iraq where you drill and drill more. and typically the first drill is the cheapest. and then has you extend production, and production conventionally becomes more difficult, it becomes more and more expensive. and the ultimate well before you close a field is the most expensive well. and we're seeing very expensive wells because the cost of the recovery is not worth it.

it is just too high. and the unconventional revolution, the first well is not the most expensive, the least expensive and the first, the it is really unbelievably extensive, they are not only extensive but they're dispersed throughout the world. i think as we have seen in part on the natural gas side there are a couple things to think about. one is drilling for natural gas in the u.s. it is down about 78% and each year we have more production than before. the growth from august to when ever the last report was out, it is 4.1 per day. so you are growing but you still

get more. it's like an accordian. if the price incentive is there to drill more you can produce more. so we are changing from an expectation of the world where we're used to thinking about the call on opec, the international energy agencies, and others that talk about the call on opec, and it is more like a call on shale. it is the expandable resource base that didn't exist before. so i think there is hope. escaping some of the history of while springs between low and high prices. that depends on how much the shale revolution can be exported around the world. and what the mark mechanisms are in those places. >> thank you panel, and now it's time for the audience to put a few questions before them.

i see a hand up there, yes? and would you please identify yourself? >> did you -- >> we have a mic we would like to hand over to you as well. >> did you say that the shale output would be how many million barrels. >> i said in six months it is likely to be what did was over the last 12 months. a rate of growth of about a million barrels a day or so. the reason for that is multible. there are efficiency gains for the first -- it will be a cushion of a significant drop in the cost of services. there is a half year of uncompleted wells.

been the cost to complete is very low. the structure of the system if you add up especially add up and go forward the bay son if you forget about the others, it is such that the momentum will continue that rate of growth for a long time. and it may surprise those who are testing the resiliency of the system, how resill yept it is likely to be for awhile in a hour price environment. >> just another question. >> yes i said we would slow down. we will slow down the rate of growth. i think it is unwide tose to say it will go negative. >> does europe make it's own forecast for when the united states natural gas might be available to europe or do you rely on the eia estimates.

>> no, we pray for it to happen as soon as possible. frankly it would be symbolic. of course what happened from one day to the other but symbolically it would be extremely important. the feeling of dependence on russia for the gas, and we mentioned many things, but the pipelines. the north stream that leads germany to russia it is a european company. they own almost 25% of the storage capacity in germany. >> thank you. another question in the back. lady in the back? >> hi i have a question for ed, could you, you touched upon this briefly, could you say a few more words on how, in the short

and medium term low oil and coal prices will affect the energy mix and policy decisions in china, and also turning it around perhaps in the longer term, and low the hour growth command in china will affect the markets for coal and oil for these commodities in the future? thank you. >> very briefly. i think since china's economy is partly top down, partly bottoms up, it is directed, and part of the direction is essentially to be able to produce twice the amount of electricity with the same volume of coal. to increase the btu content. reduce the sulfer and ash emissions. i don't think it will reject the

per project projectory. nay have been very reluctant to accept oil and prices. they won that battle on a export -- a low oil price environment, is a low natural price environment and is one where a spot market is likely to provide a significant growing volume of gas, imports into china where the infrastructure is more than ample. so i think the lower oil price environment translated into a lower gas price environment will

have an impact that will change the trajectory expected by agenciesly the iea. >> very good, question from the gentleman in the back. >> i understand that a great many oil fields have become exhausted over time leaving behind about 50% of so called unrecovebles. do you know if the recent developments that got a great deal of publicity will make it possible to revisit these oil fields and recover the unrecoverables? >> the shail reveal revolution has

total recovery of fields that once thought to become close to exhaustion. recovery rates have gone up considerably and they can be as much as 25 to 30% with resources in place. a number of that is roughly double what it was thought to have been two decades ago. on the unconventional side around 5% of the known resources are currently expected to be recoverable. but the technologies are growing at a rate yielding 20% to 30% gains per year. going from 5% to 15% of

recoverability. >> i think we have time for one more question. the gentleman in the red sweater there, please. >> it is for david i think, mainly. i guess i'm curious about this notion of coal continuing. and getting to sort of zero emissions with some sort of carbon sequestration technology. is it really likely and what approaches make that cost effective compared to the greatly decreased prices for renewables and other kinds of things sources of electricity. >> i don't think we'll get to zero emissions from any coal combustion any time soon. i think the point i was trying

to make is every projection even if they assume a very large share of renewables, baseload energy, and in order to deal, i think we have to deal with that issue, i think there are multiple ways we have to deal with that issue. if you have a large hole in the ground nearby, carbon sequestration would work for them. the other thing is more high efficiency boilers. what you have right now would be a huge improvement over what you have right now. in china you have a huge amount of coal consumption and you want to steer them in that direction. and there may be other technologies that the d.o.e. can look at. it is ways to capture emissions

or using better coal. i don't think any of them are perfect solutions. i think it is a reality that they will be dealing with them. it's not cost effective in a lot of places. we're much better off continuing to invest in ways to minimize the impact of coal combustion than just trying to wish it away. >> there is a quick question i think we can do that, do you qualify? all right, please. >> thank you david nelson with g.e. my question is what is needed politically to get european countries to exploit their shale resources? how would you encourage it? >> first thing, i would find a way to reward the owners and all of those that -- honestly this

is not all. i, in spain for instance we had a big debate. one thing i would do, the second thing, i think that for many years in europe there was an idea of don't ask don't tell in terms of electricity generation. so people don't know. and this is fine, but people don't know what it cost because you don't -- i mean i'm not able to read the reseat of the electricity every month. i don't know what i'm paying for the renewables. people should know and should know that we are bound to be dependent on a import and the efficiency is very good. >> thank you on that very

spirited note, let's go back. they will be joining us very shortly. [ applause ] screeria -- nigeria. -

counterterrorism movement. president obama gives his state of the union address to the joint session of congress on tuesday. we'll have the president's speech plus reaction from you and members of congress, live coverage tuesday night begins at 8:00 eastern on c-span, c-span during and c-span radio. and joni ernst will deliver the

formal response to the president's state of the union. the deadline for the c-span video competition is tuesday so get your entries completed now. produce a documentary on the theme, the three branches and you for your chance to win the grand prize of $5,000. for the list of the roles go to studentcam.org. now, admiral cecil haney, the commander of the strategic demand speaks about the extremist organizations nuclear detection. this is an hour and 15 minutes. i would like to offer a very warm welcome to one and all.

we're delighted to have you with us. i very much appreciate you being here with us for this commander's series event where we will hear from admiral cecil d.haney, commander of the strategic command. he joins a roster that includes martin dempsey chairman of the chiefs of staff, and the commander of allied europe. we're delighted to have you with us. we're fortunate that the long-time pentagon correspondent for "the new york times" is with us today tom, we too are honored to have you with us. the commander series is our longstanding flagship speaker series for senior u.s. and allied military leaders. and i want to thank saab north america for their strong and consistent support of the

series. we have more great speakers lined up later in the year, including admiral jonathan greenert, chief of naval operations and general kelly, chief of southern command, among others. we hope you can join us for those events as well. but today we could not be more excited to host admiral haney who is of course the commander of the u.s. strategic command, where he is the leader, steward advocate of our nation's strategic capabilities. u.s. strat com encompasses the u.s. control commission and has responsibility for global strike, global missile defense along with global command control communications, computers, surveillance, and

reconnaissance. including u.s. cyber com and combatting weapons of mass destruction. since taking command of u.s. strat com in november 2013, the admiral's top priority is maintaining safety with the allies with the safe, secure effective nuclear force. in addition, he works on partnerships to address a broad range of global challenges, building cyber space capability and confronting uncertainty with agility and innovation. this is a particularly difficult job today as we see a surge in russia, and rising china, challenging us with nuclear capabilities, space and cyber space, as well as countries like north korea and iran, seeking greater roles in these domains proliferation of technology, increased risks, posed by

non-state actors in many of these areas as well. in short, strategic deterrence may be more challenging today than it has ever been. this is why we at the atlantic council have been tackling many of these issues head on, including our work in russia particularly our trans-atlantic security work as we chart a path for europe whole and free. likewise we have been doing extensive programming on cyber security and cyber state craft initiative. ranging from nato's cyber emission to the recent attack on sony. our initiative and middle east peace and security initiative permit thinking about trans-atlantic security in a global context. and all of this work is done by the center for international security. in that light, we're very much looking forward to hearing from admiral haney today and to the discussion it will stimulate as

we better understand the strategic challenges facing the nation. with that i would like to invite our good friend michael anderson, president, ceo of saab north america to the stage to introduce the admiral. michael, the stage is yours. >> thank you, chairman, good morning, ladies and gentlemen. once again i'm michael anderson, i'm president ceo of saab, north america. saab has been a very active supporter of the atlantic council for many years and we have joinly -- jointly been involved for years. we have many key issues in policies, and the close connection between the trans-atlantic relations. we're very pleased to see that so many of you could attend

today. it is an honor for me to introduce our special guests today. admiral cecil d.haney. over the course of his 35-year long service in uniform he has built a distinguished career. admiral haney comes at this with the depth of experience and previously served as the director. combined with the region experience and the legislative background he has a true appreciation for the strategic complexity we face as a nation, as well as the practical

challenges. admiral, we're very proud and pleased to have you here today. please join me in welcoming admiral haney to the stage. >> thank you very much. well, good morning. governor prince ton and also mike thank you for the kind introduction. it is fantastic to be here today to interact with so many intellectuals, professionals who have been deeply involved in our nation's security and policy apparatus for decades. so thanks to the international security for hosting this series, and the atlantic council at large for what you do. stood up to bring foreign policy actors together to ensure a better global future. and i salute the broad range of security and international corporation issues that council

has addressed over the years. i am honored to be here but i'm astonished to be at the podium by sitting in the audience listening to many of you who engaged so brilliantly in my top diminish to deter strategic attack. while i thank tom schanker in advantage for moderating today he should know i appreciate his critical analysis for what he termed the new deterrent in his book counter strike that he co--authored with eric smith. tom details how matt kroenig, who is also in the audience today, was instrumental in sparking the debate to understand that detaxpayererrence

to stopping terrorism. it is that typical type of debate that i appreciate. so as i give you my thought, know that i value different opinions and perspectives and i look forward to my meaningful discussion. as we look at the world today it is important to stop and recognize just how far we've come since the end of the cold war. this month markingss 22 years since former president george bush and russian president yeltsin signed part two. although the treaty was never ratified it is a significant chapter in our history of reducing the number of nuclear weapons. i can only imagine the rich expanses that occurred in our history after that period. today after providing you a brief overview of my perspective of the complex security environment we face i will center my remarks on two things.

first, my priorities and approach as the commander of the u.s. strategic command, and second strategic deterrence with the need for economic deterrence. perhaps more so at any time in our history they challenge our democratic values and our security in so many ways. the nature of strategic threats, weapons of mass destruction we continue to see the capability to include but not limited to the nuclear capability. counter space, cyber space difficulties. as well as the growing list of economic disasters and disturbing trends upsetting the strategic balance giving rise for additional concern not only for me but for my fellow

combatant commanders that are my teammates and that i work very closely with. perhaps most alarming is the trend of proliferation of the capabilities challenging our ability to hold other forces that are a risk. and ultimating impacting the strategic strategic stability. there are ungoverned or ineffectively governed areas for bad actors. we know we must continue to confront the violent extremists as demonstrated by their barbaric actions that they lack the respect for the environmental norms as we sadly see and witness the atrocities in france, or the recent elements in nigeria. clearly, in time provided here i

will not be able to cover in these areas but i will address the few that you think you will be interested in from my perspective. i'll start with russia. as most of you know russia has had more than ten years in investments and modernization across their strategic nuclear forces. now, this is not about a continuation of the cold war. the cold war is over. and we know how that all turned out. this is about emerjging capability at a time of significant concerns in russia's execution of their near and abroad strategy. for example, president putin continues to stress the importance of russia's strategic forces, seen with his active messaging in every conceivable way, their speeches, press conferences and robust national and international media campaign. you also may have seen news of russian strategic bombers penetrating the u.s. and allies air defense identification zones on multiple occasions this year.

or perhaps you saw president putin on youtube ordering his commanders into action during major strategic force exercises both in october of 2013 and during the ukraine crisis in may of 2014. russia also has significant cyber capability, we just need to look back at estonia, georgia and ukraine. russia has also publicly stated they are developing counterspace capabilities, and as director clapper has mentioned, russia has anti-satellite weapons and conduct anti-satellite research. today, however, russia is not the only country that is in space. china is also modernizing their strategic forces. they're enhancing their cyber-based missiles. and while open news source report reports the first fleet tests of

their new mobile missile, they already are making progress. there is expected to be another road mobile missile capable of carrying multiple war heads. they're also testing the integration of their new submarines. as i'm sure you're aware, they're also developing multiple -- multi dimensional space capabilities supporting their access in the campaign. but with more than 60 nations operating satellites in space, it is a problem to see china conducting missile tests designed to destroy satellites. as we saw back in july of this year and that event in 2007 when their anti-satellite weapon created thousands of pieces of debris, endangering the space

systems of all nations they have also made headlines associated with the exploitation of computer networks. as you know, north korea continues work to advance their nuclear ambition. they have conducted multiple nuclear tests and claimed to have possessed warhead capability of delivery by ballistic missiles. at the same time they continue to move forward with both the development of a new road missile, the icbm. and the new missile submarine. they, too, are developing offensive cyber capabilities, and there have been no shortage of headlines pointing to north korea. iran has made no secret of their desire to acquire nuclear weapons and preventing them from acquiring these capabilitiesyiesyies

paramount to capabilities. like north korea there are also public examples of their cyber activities and capability. so as you can see we are fraught with an incredibly challenging geo-political environment, barely scratching inging the surface that i have been describing. and i want to give you my priorities as commander and i hope it makes sense that my top priority is to deter strategic attack and to provide our nation with a safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent force. some of our most modern forces are associated with remodelling and deterring. we have sustained our capabilities much longer than

originally planned. to give you an example, our missiles have been fielded in the '70s and will be sustained through 2030. the missile submarine has been sustained through 30 or 40 years of service. our newest b-52 models came off the assembly line more than 50 years ago and there is no plans to retire them before 2040. some of our war heads infrastructures have been around since world war ii and our stock pile is the oldest it has ever been, with the average age of over 27 years. our nation faces a substantial multi decade recapitalization challenge and we must continue the investment toward that effect. toward that effort. our planned investments are significant. but are commensurate with the

magnitude of the threat. the value becomes even more important, while at the same time facilitating the norm set by the non-proliferation treaty. we cannot do this alone however. i work closely with my fellow combatant commanders and the interagency. but it is also working with our allies and partners and friends and enduring relationships the think tanks and academia as well to confront the broad range of challenges. we have been able to have meetings with a number of our allies including the republic of korea, france, australia. the former defense minister of japan.

vice chief of defense of the united kingdom. and partners for space-sharing agreements. this past october we conducted a command of control exercises designed to train our department of defense forces and access -- assess our joint operational readiness across all the areas with a specific focus on nuclear readiness. and we did this not by ourselves. we did this in conjunction with the u.s. northern command, norad, to include our canadian partners in exercises that were grouped together. balance shield positive response and determined dragon. i share this with you as i want you to have an appreciation of just how i value partnerships and collaboration and how we at u.s. strategic command aim to work seamlessly decrease the inter agency as well as our allies and partners.

as a nation we depend highly on space capabilities. more so than ever before. space is fully integrated in our joint operations as well as our commercial and civil infrastructure. space today, though, is contested, congested and competitive. and we in the international community at large require assured access. while our space assets continue to face this growing threat from adversearies, adverse effects are also generated at the speed of cyber and cannot be ignored. in our lifetime we have benefitted immensely from computer capability sies. and i think it is fair so say as americans we rely on technology. but this also opened a threat access regarding our critical infrastructure and information assurance. i think you can understand while addressing the challenges in space and building our cyber

space capability and surpassis a top priority. my priority is to confront change with agility and innovation, we can't just look at military documents and understand what an adverseary's next moves will be. we just have not always done well at predicting potential conflict. we were certainly surprised about the chemical attacks in syria, ukraine, crisis and more recently here the things in france and ottawa, canada. it's going to require us to stretch our imagination in the art of deterrence to get into what i call the cognizant faces, to better understand and work with the better solution. i can't stress enough the

vitality to bring together our national leaders and think through some of our nation's most challenging issues. last summer, we cut the ribbon at u.s. strategic commands war gaming center in omaha. to help enable and challenge our thinking with the ability to look at alternative scenarios, some plausible today and some unthinkable tomorrow. this is why the department of defense innovation initiative announced recently by the secretary of defense hagel is also very important to me. we need to grow innovative leaders. identify new operational concepts and develop and continue to develop cutting edge technology so that we can continue to evolve with ideas on how to deter our potential adversearies and of course work with our allies. so now that i covered our priorities let me shift to the

topic i wanted to talk about. the emphasis on the need for deterring nuclear forces. today as i stated there are multiple forces who are capable of acquiring nuclear forces. president obama stated his goal regarding the nuclear weapons and we continue to work towards that goal with the treaty. the president's nuclear employment strategy released in june of 2013 as well )c] documents that include review, the 2014 defense review make it clear that as long as nuclear weapons exist the united states must maintain a strong and credible safe secure and effective nuclear deterrent and that we must be prepared for the

possibility that deterrents can fail. so 2015 must be tailored to work with the threat so we can determine what prevents escalation. given the aspirations of some and the modernization of the nuclear capabilities in the world today there is clearly a need for the united states to maintain nuclear capability as part of our strategy. but it is also equally clear that while our strategy while our strategic deterrence includes the triad of delivery platforms it is more than that. and all of it must remain credible for decades to come. our strategic deterrent includes the following. a robust and agile preparation. a synthesis that provides

critical warning. assured national control and communications. the necessary infrastructure to sustain nuclear weapons without fully testing the war heads. a credible missile defense system that extends and defends against limited attacks from rogue nations. relevant cyber space and space capabilities. trained and ready people to conduct strategic operation and planning. synchronized treaties and policies, and of course, a campaign plan that orients the activities toward a common purpose. this is not just capability. but a whole of government approach that requires our attention and the necessary resources. this is why i believe the nuclear deterrent group, that secretary hagel establishes, so important to keeping the focus and balance the effort to

support our nation's strategic deterrent. in closing, let me say this. the strategic context in the emerging threat environment, our increasing complexity at the same time to speak of information and misinformation, coupled with the proliferation of capabilities continues to threaten our critical infrastructure and our democratic way of life. even in this era of significant resource constraint we must get 21st century deterrent right. we must make it clear to our adversaryies or potential adversaries, that it will require us to work together as a team, the government theprivate sector academia as stated by

former secretary george schultz, deterrence is not synonymous with the assured nuclear destruction. it can and is exercised in many different ways through non-nuclear military forces. through economics. through alliances and coalition, end quote. of course, we could not have this credible strategic deterrent today if it were not for the men and women, both in uniform and in civilian clothes who conduct and contribute to our strategic deterrent mission day in and day out. across all areas from under the sea to geo-synchronized orbit they are making concrete contributions to our nation, 365 days a year. i couldn't be more proud of them and the work they are doing and i hope you have the same

sentiment. thank you for this opportunity. and i look forward to your questions. questions. >> thank you. very interesting comments thanks to chairman huntsman for the invitation to moderate today. admiral, i will spend a few minutes unpacking his very thoughtful and thought-provoking questions. but i promise to reserve half the time for questions from audience. always an exciting and engaging thing to do. we have a hard stop at 10:45. one biographical note to mention, he is a son of washington, d.c. and a product of schools there, which means there is hope for my kids. admiral, because we're here at the atlantic council i wanted to

sort of start our trip around the world thinking about deterrence, which one of the things mentioned is russia. as colonel huntsman said deterrence is one more challenge, not that we look fondly on the horrors of the cold war, but it seems obvious that deterring a nuclear russia, just so obvious with the nuclear capabilities, does present challenges indeed. what is your thinking about that, especially since it is a whole amount of chains that russia is using from little green man and nuclear capabilities in ways that the soviet russia simply didn't. >> if you look at russia today you have to look at it as today understanding its history as well as what has been stated as their goals for the future. and as we work through deterrence with them, first and

foremost we have to have deep cranial understanding of where they are. their leadership thinking and where they're trying to go with their objectives. and as you said in today's world, we need to look at it in an integrated fashion. and it really requires time, patience and capability in dealing with that. so it is very important that russia remains on our radar scope in a big way. but as we work this that we work it in an integrative fashion across our whole of government capabilities. but with deep regard to our allies and partners that are also associated with this. >> what does that look like exactly? i mean, is it a capability for capability match? you mentioned whole of government, of course. but it seems i think if most people were polled today they would say the initiative remains with mr. putin. so how can we deter a very

aggressive chess player who seems to be winning so far? >> well i think winning is always looked at better post facto in history. and there are a lot of parts and pieces in motion here across our various activities as a country at large. and i would not want anyone in this room to think that the united states of america is not taking that very very seriously. in a good way to see a nation state like ukraine having its sovereignty challenged as you describe here is obviously one piece of it. the similar area of crimea and the business of doing this at the same time while doing the flexing, what i call it, of their nuclear capabilities. just the long-range strategic

aircraft flight that i mentioned earlier in the remarks to some of the exercising of strategic capability at critical points. one, there is no doubt i think in anyone's mind here that russia is very interested in president putin and ensuring that they're recognized as a nuclear-capable state. and we need to be thoughtful and clever as we approach their endeavors here, particularly the exercising of their advertise and broad strategy. and it is more than just ukraine, from my visual point. and as you watch the flexing and the discussion, quite frankly of nuclear, the number of times president putin that has brought it up, one thing i want to exact size this is not about getting into some cold war race with russia. it is about dealing with it professionally and thoughtfully

using all of our mechanisms as a deterrent. >> right, we certainly don't know what is in putin's mind right now, but lots of thoughtful analysts have expressed concern that the baltics could be next. they like the ukraines have a sizeable population. that could be part of the plan given the article 5 demands of putin-delayed challenge, in effect trying to prove that putin is a paper tiger. as commander of strategic command what is your role in assuring our allies and improving -- proving american resolve? >> well, my role, obviously, is to take all of those missions that i have in my job and make sure we're ready to execute those, first and foremost. but also with those priorities as i described here yeah the strategic command doesn't do this alone. we work very closely with our fellow combatant commands and

also the inner agency to ensure we are thoroughly looking at alternative futures and those type of things. and obviously, ensuring that we are providing our national security apparatus all the capability associated with it. while at the same time working in close partnership with nato. you just had phil breedlove here not that long ago in terms of work that he is doing out there from his standpoint. so in the work that he is doing, we had used strategic command, also providing support in that regard and many dialogues between us including the work we do in various forms together. to include exercise. >> you certainly own the strategic deterrence from the military standpoint. all the pieces although mentioned, including also missile defense, cyber space as

well as intelligence, do you feel they are knitted together? can you get your arms around them in one place or do you terrible to see stove piping in risks and plans for strategic deterrence? >> well, i look at quite frankly and as i look at that list, if you will what i consider critical strategic deterrent tool bag if you will. all of those are important and integrated. you have to look at it as an integrated approach in this 21st century we are a part of. and as a result, it is very advantageous, because that also glues together other players in incredible way that is allows us to work even more scenes in that regard. so the business of being able to work missile defense is

important. part of that calculation as i mentioned, one of those ingredients, as i mentioned to make sure we get the right balance in an effective way and the improvement in to capability. >> i don't think anybody should use this in the same sentence but i'm going to anyway without asking for your review of them -- >> just remember, you said i was a d.c. public school graduate now. be careful with that. >> right. but i did want to talk about north korea and your thinking of new applications and deterrence to that adversary. but i noticed not in this latest go-around but a year ago in north korea one of the signs of deterrence was the strategic command sent to south korea a multi-billion dollar bomber that was design to doed to fly over north

korea at night low and slow so the images could be seen throughout the north. so clearly the demonstration effect of that strategic platform was used in a different way. i thought it was very clever and interesting. talk a little bit about how you're looking at the north korean threat today with both new ideas and perhaps even more platforms of new applications and new ways. >> well, you described one of our mechanisms in terms of being able to provide our geographical command and the deterrence missions we go out on. one, it keeps our operators fresh in terms of understanding the environments that they could be operating in. two, it provides us a mechanism to work with our allies and partners while also honing our skill set. but i won't sit here and give

you everything in our list, quite frankly. we want that time and capability to be thought of with our time and choosing. and quite frankly, there is strength in ambiguousness. where there is too much chest thumping or discussions about what we do before we do it in terms of things. you should know as you look at the art of deterrence the business of being able to have survivable capability matters. the business to hatch elements in a big way, and be able to predict as well as follow the movements of north korea to detaxpayerde deter that business is important. already they have had three nuclear tests.

they are very vocal with where they're trying to hit in terms of their nuclear capabilities. it is very important not just in the republic of korea, japan, et cetera, very important we continue to work with those countries. with the combatant commander that is in charge of that region. as we work on strategic command through various mechanisms including that. the business of making sure we have a safe, secure and effective strategic deterrent very important when the chief of defense through the republic of korea came through the strategic event last year, he was very interested in understanding our capabilities. we had some frank discussions in that regard why the capability we have. >> when you talk about capabilities, i would like to get a comment on your confidence level today that you have what you need and to get really

specific what you desire for the future. i know that secretary hagel stopped at one of your commands and very clearly endorsed the future bomber, very expensive proposition but something i imagine that you need. what other sort of platforms capabilities b-61 -- a bunker buster, what things are on your list if you can deal the sequester, which is matter of legislative and executive branch? >> well, what is on my list is that we have the capability to have an effect with the incredible strategic deterrence now and into the future. subsequently, it is about sustaining the plan we have but not to short-change the fact we do need to modernize our capabilities. and as you look at the list i have here, all the way from fencing capability to the platform which gives a lot of discussion there. and the one you mentioned the

bomber is one i think every american can be proud of. when you think about how long ago the last b-52 hotel rolled off the assembly line and that we continue to use it in a strategic capability day in and day out. we ought to be proud of the fact we made those investments. no doubt we'll be able to do the same for the future bomber. when you look at the expense of bombers and look at over the number of years, the b-52 hotel i just gave the example of. it is very important to put that into the counting the costs. so it is very important that we build our capability. that it is endurable and flexible and can survive in harm's way not just to do it today but for many decades to

come. so to your list of things i think i have already given that list in the earlier discussion in terms of things. but we can ill afford to take and neuter our strategic capabilities without ensuring that we have something else to replace them with. >> right, but i guess the art of strategy is doing more with less and while in a perfect world strategy drives the budgets -- >> well, when you say less, let's face it. it's a good thing. we don't have the number of war heads we had back in the '70s, et cetera. we have shrunk that down. we're on an invective to get that started at the first of the year. that is a good thing. when you look at the submarine fleet, the numbers we have had over the years versus still going down here, the number of 12, for the future to be able to have that survivable for the strategic capability. so i would like to put that in

perspective in terms of things because i am a believer as a taxpayer that we have to guard our resources thoughtfully and carefully and have the requisite debates. >> other things that might keep you up at night. you mentioned non-state actors and terrorists, even paris and elsewhere. and also your role in combatting the weapons of mass destruction. if you described the way of thinking about the strategic deterrence of tactical actions that of course have the strategic impact that threaten our nation. >> well, the whole business here of the various threats to our nation always require a full approach, if you will to the problem. it is very important that this

critical type as we look at countering terrorists, terrorists capability, that we keep our new thinking new approaches and continue to validate all approaches that are also working to keep -- this business going in the right direction for us. as has been stated by many this is a lone journey for us associated with addressing and balancing the organization. and that requires the full thrust of cranial thinking all the way to tactical capability as we go forward to the 21st century. >> but are you concerned at all sort of that the 9/11 type of event, very well planned. obvious strategic impact to our nation is being replaced if not by self-radicalized but by sort of less sophisticated tactical

attacks like ak-47 attacks, how does this whole of government try to deter that and prevent that? >> well, i think when there is a recognition as we go forward you will have problems. and i think the business that hasw has not been something that our nations have not been working towards and thinking about, et cetera. but preparing ourselves and engaging as we have been from afar while at the same time working with our various countries itself, and people that are in it to ensure the bar of understanding of this particular threat, being able to do that is important from 9/11 to what we have had in france. i'm not going to go into a comparison here, one to the other, but we've seen what the effects are in terms of economy and 9/11 and the approaches we

have to do. and what we have to do with. get our teams together, critical thinking and approaches thoughtful pragmatic and prepare ourselves for a long journey. >> it is a marathon not a sprint. before i invite audience questions i have one last for you, admiral my colleague and friend has done some terrific work examining some -- i'm sure you would agree, the gaps in their performance of your personnel. as the commander of what are truly the president's own weapons, what would you say to this audience with the american people to give them assurances that the safety and security and professionalism of your force will be sustained in years ahead. >> well, i would say as we've gone through my tenure here as commander of strategyic command it has been a good journey in the forums and discussion we

have had in association with the support for the capability for our country to include its people. and as we've gone through this journey, the first piece required is we expect throughout our entire military our military folks to operate with integrity. and with great character. and when we find these kind of problems no matter where it is, we take it out of our system while at the same time get through some root cause analysis to figure out what all we are doing as associated with that particular problem. i would say our checks and balances associated with our capability, and when you look at the team that comes to work every day, passion, et cetera in any organization you have to continue to work on that in any organization, the percentage of folks that may not come with the same kind of background, et cetera. and in this case i'm very happy that we found the problem.

eradicated the problem from our system and went to work with this nuclear enterprise review business to work on those problems that we needed to do in support of this mission. so through 2014 as announced by secretary hagel and deputy secretary, the work that has culminated in a variety of different reactions. some requiring resources, some requiring better leadership. and all of those things are in motion right now. but as we continue to go through this journey, we need to remember all of those folks that are out there doing the mission day in and day out, even as we work other missions throughout -- that we talk even more about, that this is a critical capability for our country. and that we have great america -- i have spent 2014 traveling throughout, meeting with all of these warriors that are doing

our strategic deterrent mission. whether that mission is under the water or in the icbm launch control center or whether that missionaccess, and what have you or some of our early-warning radar teammates. and i can say unequivocally those folks are fired up and charged about the mission. i think the rest of us need to support them in how we talk about it and associate it with plans we have now in support of resources, the things we need to resource in that regard. i'm proud of working with those great americans. >> i look forward to hearing questions. if you would wait for a microphone. please identify yourself. there's a limited time and lots of people. please keep your questions concise. sir? >> thank you. >> i'm a recovered sovietologist from many years ago. in full disclosure, i remain on

the advisory board. my question relates to russia's new military doctrine that was announced in late december. i wonder what your reaction was to it, and anything that may have been different that struck you? and second, in the context of russia, it seems to me the one area that they have a very, very large numeric advantage over us is with nuclear weapons. it's dominant we only have a handful of weapons in europe as you well know. what is your reaction to that and how do you deal if not with the deterrence, but coping with that imbalance at the theater, and short-range level? >> first of all thank you for your remarkable service, and your work you've done over time. i sometimes worry in today's environment we don't have enough folks that really have deep roots into working the russian part of our business and that we continue to work to inspire

young folks, to continue to become knowledgeable as you are. but the first piece here associated with president putin putting out his doctrine i would rather see him be vocal and understand what he's thinking out in front versus guessing. or trying to integrate the jigsaw puzzle parts of the business. so to me, while we were watching very closely, predicting and what have you, and he came out with his doctrines from my standpoint, it wasn't a bit of surprise associated, because he had demonstrated a lot of these things associated with his actions. what has been part of the piece that i had been a bit focused on is to make sure we take note of all the parts and pieces, not

just this particular speech, but also the combination of things that we have observed over time. and not ignore, or low-ball that, but to continue to confront those and to continue to work our cranial power associated with dealing with it in a holistic way, sorted with things. it will be interesting as we go forward and see additional reactions, as we look at how russia does with their economy these days as well as their ambitions to maintaining strategic capabilities in multiple dimensions, not just nuclear. and as we have also looked at their endeavors, making sure that we're prepared and working in conjunction, as i said before, with our allies and partners and looking at this globally. >> in the back on the aisle? the gentleman here.

>> thank you very much. i'm with an agency in hong kong. china recently conducted a test of a new long-range missile which can reach any city in the united states. do you have any comments on that? and secondly how is the u.s. trying a nuclear dialogue going on right now? and do you have any exchange program for this year between the u.s. strategic command and the p.o.a.? >> thank you for your questions. there are a series here. obviously, we look at strategic capabilities of every country

that's out there, developing or modernizing their associated capability. and you mentioned the df-41. as i mentioned in my speech there are a plethora of different strategic capabilities that china is also growing. as far as us having a dialogue from the strategic command to the equivalent organizations in china, there is no u.s. strategic command that i can directly go to. most of my work in that regard is working through pacific command. pacific command is the combatant command for that part of the region. sam locklear leads that group, and has a variety of different areas there, as well as other forms that we associate with. but today i do not have a forum that i work with a corresponding team from china on.

whether that comes out in the future, time will tell. we're doing a lot of things right now with china. i know not that long ago, there was an exercise that was conducted out there with chinese participation. and those kind of things are good in that regard. from the strategic picture, though, as you pointed out, the piece that concerns us and that we work hard at being that china is not transparent in terms of its intentions and development programs and what have you, that that is an area that we have to work towards, and continue to be mindful of as we go into the future. when we look at countries like our relationship with russia being able to have this transparency through new start treaty, very important to both our nations. and that's why it's important, i think, that we continue that kind of business. even through ukraine and

crimea, we have continued to inspect each other per plan associated with that treaty for example. but when we look at china we haven't been invited to come and explore what they have associated with things in their nation. thank you. >> the question here, front row? >> thanks. analyst defense news. the steward of the arsenal and personnel that goes with it to make sure the force has proficiency, at what point does sort of the investment, the entire nuclear infrastructure whether it's at the labs, at what point does that gap in capability begin to affect the operational capabilities of the force? and it's been two decades we developed a new nuclear weapon, for example. it has national challenges, obviously. at what point do we need some

form of national investment. like the ohio program, being so expensive, that the navy can't take it out of its own bucket. do we need to have sort of a different fundamental strategic approach to how we recapitalize this massive which some newspapers have profiled, on the capabilities from the problems associated with it? >> very good. good question. as i would expect from your experience. good having you here. the whole business of infrastructure is a very key component, as i mentioned earlier, that i consider part of our strategic deterrent. i visited all of the laboratories here over the last year, that do that work for us. national labs like livermore, los alamos, for example, and work very close with the nsa organization under the department of energy. we have nuclear weapons council

dodd associated with that piece. we're in regular negotiations in that regard. the piece that we worked as a team to really evaluate very critically is not just, let's go help build something new. quite frankly i think we've been very thoughtful as a nation in our approach of the life extension programs and those kind of things modernizing electronics and those pieces that we must to show we have safety and security associated with nuclear weapons. with this having visited and seen the professionals, you're right, they have to work hard to keep the inflow of professionals to come in, to work that super-duper nuclear physics chemistry, met a lunchy, all of those things that go through and does a lot, not just in the life extension programs, but in the

surveillance programs associated with our nuclear warheads. so i don't want to say that there's not work that those organizations have to do to keep their work force in place, and the fact that we are working because there are some infrastructure things in terms of facilities that require improving in order to sustain this for decades to come. and those are things that we as a nation have to continue to work on our programs associated with that, so that we don't dilute that part. because that's a key part of our deterrence apparatus. your second question -- i talked so long, i think i forgot what the second one was. oh, it was about budgeting mechanism. >> [ inaudible ].

>> well, right now from my perspective, my big-ticket item is that those items need to be in the budget and funded. i'll let the professionals here from the office of secretary of defense and congress really work on the noodle on how we need to work that perhaps more holistically in terms of what you just said. that piece of being able to follow the money as you know is very important, to whether it's one bin, or one that we pay bins that we pay close attention to, associated with things, because when you work at the ssbn or icbm, is one mission associated with things and then you have to have that dialogue of how do you do those things that have dual capabilities. and weighs in that bin, all the way as i talked about before, from outer space to under the water.

>> sir? >> peter sharpman, merrick corporation. the doctrine distinguished between intelligence gathering which we tried to prevent, but not deter, and outright attack, which we visibly and vocally deterred. in the realm of cyber, how should we think about drawing the line between intelligence gathering and actual attack? >> thank you, peter, for that question. very thoughtful. in terms of you know, where do you draw this line between -- because you have so many things going on in this cyber arena of exploitation to destruction of

property, in terms of things, and this piece goes even higher than that, i think in terms of where do we have the international rules of the road if you were to say that really help define that piece for us in a clear and concise and verifiable way. and while there's some work going on in that, in terms of policies and what have you i think we have a way to go in the national associative agreement in that regard. i think as you look at cyber -- you call it intelligence, the piece that i would say we have to be very careful with as we have seen, i would call various exploitation that occurs here, and that end up not just gathering tenlsintelligence, but

putting things in the commercial sense of things, that are also very problematic in terms of things, and then you may say, well, that doesn't cross the threshold in terms of to the extent that you're in an attack, but it can in fact have very harming effects over the long run associated with our technology, and our r & d and research and development and things we have worked hard on and invested in. so as we look at this, we have to address this across the whole spectrum of things not just a flag network or what have you, or flag critical infrastructure, but this whole spectrum. as you can just see here in the website most recently with central command, in terms of vandalism associated with those websites.

and we have to be careful that we don't overblow some of these events to where they are attacked when they aren't in that attack. each one i think they require very careful consideration and analysis in terms of what has occurred where is the attribution of what has occurred, and the appropriate measures associated with those particular events. as stated in our cyber strategy, it's not just limited in cyber as we take approaches associated with the particular problem. it's using all of our instruments as a nation. diplomacy, information military, economics, et cetera. >> yes, in the back? sir? >> thank you, admiral. from the george washington university. one of your predecessors, general chilton, said we allowed a generation to skip class with

respect to strategic deterrence. he took important and useful steps to respond to that with his capabilities. but many of us in higher education understood that as a challenge to us as well. and i was wondering what higher education could do to be more supportive and useful to you and your mission and personnel? thank you. >> well thank you, doug. i think coming from an institution like yours, looking at academia, i really count on us having a lot of dialogue associated with deterrence at large across that spectrum that i talked about from the various big areas nuclear, space cyberspace, but this business also of violent extremist organizations you would love to have in their hands weapons of mass destruction, for example. and talking about the art of deterrence, and what new things

can we have in the tool bag. i like to say new approaches associated with things, that should be -- perhaps some are not so new -- but to make sure they're being thought about as we go forward. i think also in our nation as a whole, the business of education spectrum particularly in cyberspace for example, everybody uses it in a big way. understanding the vulnerability associated with things. i go around a lot to our military folks and forums and i'll ask everybody to raise their hand that is a cyber warrior today. and in some forum also at the beginning of this job, i might get three people who raise their hand. i ask, what's the rest of you doing? all of us are cyber warriors. there's just degrees of a cyber warrior associated with business. from an educational standpoint

raising the bar and understanding these threat factors are very important to the united states of america as a whole, not just the military folks doing operations, and how we fight, but it's critical in terms of raising the bar of understanding in this social media, and world that we're in, to ensure we understand those vulnerabilities all the way down to a personal level. i should also mention -- i don't want to overblow cyber, but similarly, everybody uses an atm machine. this whole thing, again of understanding our vulnerabilities, and it's so far out there, that sometimes that's an area that doesn't get the recognition i would like. i spent a lot of time today talking about the business of the modernization and how other nations are having aspirations to the nuclear business nuclear

weapons business, and we have to continue to work approaches to keep that contained. >> we have time for one last question. i want to thank the atlantic council for hosting yet another important dialogue today. and thank you for your time and wisdom. the gentleman i called on, yes, please. >> thanks, admiral. brian bradley, nuclear security and deterrence monitor. as you mentioned secretary hagel recently created a nuclear deterrent enterprise review group. i was wondering if you could speak at all about what specific metrics this body established to evaluate the health of the nuclear enterprise? and since establishment of those metrics, how the nuclear enterprise has been performing according to them? thank you. >> thank you for that question, brian. in terms of this nuclear enterprise review group that's been established, as one having

a battle rhythm where we're meeting, so that we are in fact having frank discussions about our today's readiness is, as well as how we're working toward investments that we critically need, and modernization. and as a result one of these was going through listing what are the things we need to be investing in whether that's people whether that was security, whether it was technology et cetera. and really getting through that series of reviews. as you know secretary hagel ordered an internal and external review, and also the air force had a, what i call bottoms-up kind of review bringing forth what are the things that needed to be done in an improvement program, and then looking at

those things and prioritizing them, and now tracking to make sure we are continuing to moving forward in those areas. some of these areas are management of people in terms of how we did a personal reliability program related to that. so there's a whole series and listing of these areas and now meetings to make sure that we're still making progress on those. while at the same time, i have instituted a few things. one in particular called stakeholder reviews, where i meet with my commanders, as well as those other stakeholders that support the program so that we can have an operational to a headquarters, if you will, kind of discussion soup-to-nuts in a particular area, whether it's submarines, intercontinental ballistic missiles bombers. we're about to have one here in january over the nuclear command

and control operations apparatus, so we'll do these in a battle rhythm kind of way so that we're continuing to have that piece looked at. in addition to our visits to these places there are a variety of different levels so we can really get the heart beat of those warriors that are doing the mission day in and day out for us to make sure we're not missing something. because we're doing the reviews doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to look for process and improvements of things to ensure that we can continue to have as we have today a safe, secure, and effective strategic nuclear arsenal. >> admiral haney thank you. thank all of you for your participation today. and again thank you to the atlantic council. [ applause ] a few live events on c-span3 to tell you about. at 9:00 eastern coast guard commandant admiral paul zucomp

talks about the evolving role of the coast guard. then at 10:30, the brookings institution asks panelists whether current federal budget spending caps are sustainable. later a discussion on fighting terrorist organizations hosted by the center for security policy. that's happening at noon eastern. here are some of our featured programs for this weekend on the c-span networks. on c-span2, saturday night at 10:00, on book tv's afterwards brett stephens. focusing on the domestic concerns. and sunday night at 10:00, democratic representative from new york steve israel on his recent novel about a salesman and a top-secret government surveillance program. and on "american history tv" on c-span3, saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, on "lectures in

history," george mason university professor john turner on the early mormons and their attempt to create a new zion in the american west in the 1830s. sunday afternoon at 4:00 on real america nine from little rock, the 1964 academy award-winning film about the forced desegregation of little rock arkansas's, all-white high school. let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400, e-mail us at comments at c-span.org. or send us a tweet at c-span #comments. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. ment obama and british prime minister david cameron outlined their plans to drive economic growth confront terrorists and, quote, stand together against russia's aggressive acts in an article published in the times of london that we see here. the opinion piece comes as

cameron arrives at the white house for talks on a range of issues, including cybersecurity.

>> during prime minister's questions this week david cameron addressed last week's terror attacks in paris and told members that the uk's counterterrorism bill currently going through parliament is vital in defeating terrorism. >> questions to the prime minister. number 130. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker this morning i had meetings with colleagues and others and i shall have further meetings today. >> thank you, mr. speaker. in the future investment in jobs which the prime minister's renegotiation strategy is affecting this community. will the prime minister give a guarantee he will not support a

war in the future in an eu referendum? >> since i made the announcement that there should be an in-house referendum on europe, the investment coming into britain has gone up. and there are times when britain is getting more investment than the rest of europe put together. >> the whole house would honor the bravery of our volunteers and welcome the news of the crystalists. and moving to the next state, will the prime minister congratulate them for their upstanding work so far, and possible support in the race? >> i think my friend is right to raise this issue. i'm sure everyone is thinking of following it and it is very good news she's out of critical care. but still, there's a long way to go. i think what she says about developing a vaccine is vitally

important. my honorable friend on government policy is leading the work on this and making sure we do everything to try and cut through some of the bureaucracy that otherwise would be in place so we can develop a vaccine fast. >> mr. speaker, mr. speaker the whole krun tri across all communities are in a sense of solidarity with the people of france following last week's dreadful attack. those who seek to terrorize and divide us they will fail. as this house of commons sent a clear signal on this issue, we are united. turning to the actions that need to be taken, does the parliament agree with me that our counterterrorism efforts must be to prevent young people from being drawn into violent extremism in the first place, and also agree that to tackle the problem needs to be expanded so it supports in particular

community-led actions and given the priority it deserves. >> i agree with the gentleman about how important it is to stand together in favor of free speech, freedom of expression the root of law, democracy, the values that we hold dear and i think that demonstration in paris and the outpouring you see both here and around the world against these horrific attacks show these values will not be defeated. in terms of what the gentleman says about what must be done, we've got to prepare for any attack that could take place, and that means making sure we fund our counterterrorism policing properly as we do. it means reaching out to potentially vulnerable groups of people, and i met for instance with the jewish leadership council yesterday. but it also means confronting the poisonous narrative of islamist extremism and that is what we're doing on putting a duty through every public organization to confront the extremism wherever they find it, whether that's in universities or schools, on campuses in

prisons or elsewhere. that is what the prevent program, which we're expanding, is also all about. >> what you said in particular anti-semitism and prejudice wherever we find it, does he also agree to travel to syria to participate in the conflict, with more than half of them having returned waiting to do more? in particular does he agree we need a much more rigorous approach including compulsory engagement with radicalization programs to turn these people away from violent extremism? >> i think it is right that we do everything we can to stop people traveling to syria to take part in these activities, and that is what the counterterrorism bill which is going through the house of lords right now is aimed to do. but also, as he says people coming back should be looked at on a case-by-case basis and in every case it should be considered about whether they would benefit from going into a radicalization program. what we've done with the prevent

program is had the review by lord carlisle in 2011, and he found that the existing program, and i quote, he said that there have been cases with groups now supporting the ideology has received funding. we're expanding the program and as he says we need to make sure that everyone who benefits from anti-radicalization gets it. one final point. this is in the spirit of friends across the house. one or two people have referred to our current situation as a sort of a zombie parliament. this counterterrorism bill is absolutely vital in defeating terrorism, and is discussed in the house of parliament right now. >> mr. speaker, mr. speaker, i'm glad we can work across parties on this issue. and we will endeavor to continue to do so. let me turn to where there is less agreement. in may 2010, speaking about the tv debate a party leader -- a

party leader -- [ shouting ] -- a party leader says, and i quote, it would have been feeble to find some excuse to back out. so i thought we've got to do it. can you remind us, who said that? >> i am all for these debates taking place. but you cannot have -- [ shouting ] >> the question has been asked and the answer is to be heard. the prime minister. >> you cannot have two minor parties without the third minor party. so i put the question to him, why is he so frightened of debating the green party? >> mr. speaker mr. speaker, i'll debate anyone. but the mapn who said it will be feeble to back out of the debate

is him. we understand as long ago as last thursday, his inviting pattern was to give the green party a pathetic excuse. it's not for him -- it's not for him -- it's not for him, it's not for me, it's not for any party leader to decide who is in the debate. it's up to the broadcasters. that's the country we live in. now, are you really telling the people of britain he's going to deny them the tv debate if he doesn't get to choose it? >> european elections this year you and the green both beat the liberal democrats today, and you are to have -- [ laughter ] it's very simple. you either have both of them or you have none of them. i ask again why is he so chicken when it comes to the green? [ shouting ]

>> mr. speaker, there's only -- there's only -- there's only one person -- there's only one person running scared of these debates and this prime minister. [ shouting ] >> and when he says he doesn't want to take part with the green, nobody, but nobody believes him. not the people behind him, not the person next to him, not the country. however, he dresses it up. he's running scared. these debates don't belong to me, they don't belong to him they belong to the british people. what does he think gives him the right to run away from these debates. >> there are two credible sets of debates. you can either have a debate with all the national party who appear in this house or you can have a debate between the two people who have become prime minister.

those are the credible debates. so i ask him again when he looks at the green party, why is he so scared? [ shouting ] >> mr. speaker, i'll debate anyone the broadcasters invite to debate. i think he doth protest too much. he's run out of excuses. he's running scared of these debates. and in the words of lady thatcher he's brit. >> mr. speaker, with just ten of these sessions to go he wants to debate having a debate. he can't talk about unemployment because it's coming down. he can't talk about growth in the economy, because it's going up. he can't talk about his energy price freeze, because it's turned into a total joke. mr. speaker, the more time he and i can spend in the television studio and on television, the happier i will be. [ shouting ]

so please, if he's got any more questions left, ask a serious one. [ shouting ] >> mr. speaker, mr. speaker, yesterday -- yesterday the former prime minister, mr. blair, had to be summoned to the select committee. to reluctantly give evidence. we now understand that the director general of the bcc, lord hall, is refusing to give evidence to another select committee on the grounds that he's a member of parliament. he's also a paid public servant. isn't it time that we review the matter of the privilege in this place? >> it's a matter for the select committee and the house. but the general rules should be that people involved in the senior management of the bbc should come.

because the bbc needs to be and is publicly accountable. i actually think lord hall does a good job at the bbc but i will have a careful look at what my honorable friend says. >> dr. allen whitehead. >> the liaison committee meeting, the prime minister promised to look into the full publication of the ostensibly redacted report on the economy impacts. have you looked into this? and is he now going to insist on full unredacted publication? >> i did look into the issue. i don't want to give the honorable gentleman an inaccurate answer. so i will go check about the action taken after that meeting and see what i can tell him. >> in his speech last week the inspector general identified a number of important gaps in their surveillance which doesn't

need to be addressed by law. some of these have called them a breach of civil liberties, others have said that it's just another snooper's charter. but doesn't the prime minister agree with me that public safety must come above everything else? and that civil liberty must include not being bombed shot or beheaded by some deranged jihadist? >> well i agree with my honorable friend that the first duty of every government is to keep the country safe. we certainly don't do that by trashing our own civil liberties and traditions. but i believe when it comes to this vital issue of being able to have proper surveillance on the communications of potential terrorists, up until now, this parliament and british governments have taken a very clear view whether it's about looking at letters, whether it's been about fixed telephone communications or mobile communications, we have always believed that extremists on the production of a signed warrant

from the home secretary it should be possible to look at someone's communications to try and stop a terrorist outrage. the decision i think we have to take is, are we prepared to allow in the future as technology develops safe spaces for terrorists to communicate? the principle i think we should adopt is, no we are not content for that to happen. and as a result, we should look to legislate accordingly. >> darwin faces 1,000 lashes and ten years in prison because he wrote articles for which the government disagreed. will the prime minister join me in condemning the barbaric and medieval ways of saudi arabia. that there should be more human rights than economic muscle. >> we don't approve of these sorts of punishments and we always raise these cases when british citizens are involved in the strongest possible way. i know we will on this occasion

too. >> stephen metcalf. >> thank you, mr. speaker. unemployment down 44%. 800 apprenticeships started in the last year. what is said about our long-term economic -- [ shouting ] >> delighted with the news that my honorable friend brings. it is remarkable how in almost every contingency in this house benefits are down. there are 224,000 people almost a quarter of a million more people in work in the east of england. those are statistics. every one of those statistics is about everyone going out and earning a wage and supporting their family and managing to achieve a better sta