it easier for the senate to facilitate pass and get that bill president. so i look -- bill to the president. so i look forward to working with the gentleman to see if we might overcome the partisan vote that came out and replace that with a bipartisan vote, make some accommodations on both sides to accomplish that objectivive. and i appreciate his being willing to work on that. last -- next to last, the export-import next to last the export-import bank, i know there's work being done. i know the gentleman indicated it's not ready at least for passage. but we know -- this expires at the end of the year. we are very concerned about the adverse impact it will have. could the gentleman give me any information on where he thinks that consideration of that bill may be at this point in time? mr. mccarthy: would the gentleman yield? mr. hoyer: i yield.

mr. mccarthy: do i not anticipate that coming up -- i do not anticipate that coming up next week. we will certainly notify the members if that will be considered on the house. million hoyer: again, i -- mr. hoyer: i did understand it's not coming up next week. the reason i mention time, we have so few days, legislative days left, we are going to need to plan to address some of these issues that i think are going to be very important to our economic growth. i know the gentleman's very concerned about that. we are very concerned about it. on our side. his members are very concerned about that. we believe that that export-import bank is a -- an economic growth, economic confidence building measure. we would hope we could address that. there are also, as the gentleman knows, 41 house republicans who signed the letter urging that be passed and indicating their support of it, which we believe

every democrat on this side will vote for that. that's almost 200 people. with the 41. clearly makes a majority of this house. we think it could be passed on this floor, and we think it would have a very positive effect on the economy. we would urge the gentleman to consider very carefully with his colleagues whether or not we can move forward on that. lastly, i would say to the gentleman, we are all very concerned about children coming to the border. concerned about the process of making sure that this humanitarian crisis is dealt with in a constructive, positive way for the children. but also in way that gives clear notice that america cannot have borders which are simply opened but must be able to authorize people to come in to this country. not have them come in in an unauthorized fashion. in that respect, one of the

problems, i don't know whether the gentleman had the opportunity to see the "wall street journal" editorial today, but they made it very clear that one of the problems is that because the system is broken, because we have not passed comprehensive immigration reform, and the gentleman, of course, based upon where he lives, obviously is very -- probably one of our more knowledgeable members on this issue, but the "wall street journal" observes that one of the problems is that people cannot come across the border and then return in a fashion which will provide for work here by them and also for them not only coming here but then leaving without an expectation they'll never be able to visit or work again. either family members or for the purposes of work. we continue to believe that the passage of comprehensive immigration reform would be a ameliorate the present crisis we see at our

borders. and we continue to hope that comprehensive immigration reform will also be an item on the agenda. although we have 22 days left between now and our october 2 projected adjournment, the expectation, i think, of all of is we will come back in a postelection session, so-called lame duck session. either before that, in the next 22 days, or in the session after the election, we believe it is critically important to address the immigration issue. the gentleman and i have had an opportunity to discuss this over the last couple of months. i know he's very knowledgeable about this issue and sensitive to this issue and i would hope we could work together to see whether or not we could put a bipartisan bill on the floor sooner rather than later. i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i

appreciate you bringing up the crisis at the border. many of the members in this house on both sides have been down to the border personally to see the crisis. i think that's foreign for all elected officials to go see. -- that's important for all elected officials to go see. we have a task force working on this. i know the president put for the the supplemental -- put forth the supplement. do i not anticipate that coming up next week, but as we look toward the remainder of july i look forward to working with the gentleman on that and other issues. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that response and hope that the supplemental, because it deals with a humanitarian crisis, would not be a partisan issue. we obviously need to deal with the immediate problem. i was talking about the longer term problem, but i appreciate the gentleman's observation with reference to the supplemental. i'm a supporter of that supplemental. obviously appropriations committee needs to review it with respect to the proper levels of funding, but there is

no doubt that we, right now, have inadequate resources to deal with the humanitarian crisis that confronts us immediately. those funds are necessary. i'm pleased that the gentleman brought it up and i look forward to working with him on it. unless the gentleman wants to make further comment, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mccarthy: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on monday, july 14, 2014, when it shall convene at noon for morning hour debate and >> next, a foreign-policy discussion with the house of foreign affairs committee, ed royce. then a news conference with defense secretary chuck hagel. and the defense minister of japan.

>> on the next "washington psteinl", ruthie e discusses their lawsuit they filed on behalf of immigrant children. liberty iseligious legally defined and how it is being debated in the nation's court. and former homeland security general details efforts to increase security at overseas airports. andwe will take your calls you can join the conversation at facebook and twitter. "washington journal" live at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. ago, the watergate scandal led to the only resignation of an american president. american history tv revisits 1974 in the final weeks of the nixon administration.

hear the supreme court oral arguments as the watergate's prosecutor contest the president's claim of executive privilege over his oval office recordings. he may be right when he reads the constitution, but he might also be wrong. is no one but the president of course that is free his course of erroneous interpretation. of ouren becomes constitution form of government? onwatergate 40 years later american history tv on c-span 3. >> next the chair of the foreign affairs committee on the ed royce, talks about a range of foreign-policy issues, including

the afghan elections, allegations of the u.s. python germany, and u.s. policy in iran. other members and sent a letter to president obama saying he should consult with congress on for the ron negotiations. -- for iran negotiations. this discussion is held by the christian science monitor. it is about an hour. >> thank you for coming, everybody. our guest is representative ed royce. this is his first visit. we are grateful to him for coming. he is a native californian and a graduate of california state university school of business administration. his interest in politics is long-standing. he headed you for reagan in the 1976 challenge to the then president gerald ford. -- youth for reagan in the 1976 challenge to the

then president gerald ford. >> [indiscernible] >> after a brief career in the private sector, in 1982 our guest was elected to the california state senate, authoring a law that made it a felony to stalk someone. he has been a member of the house foreign affairs committee since coming to congress and was named the chair in the member 2012. now on to the ever popular process portion of our program. we are on the record here. no live blogging or tweeting and no filing of any kind while the breakfast is underway to give us time to listen to what our guest says. no embargo when the session ends. we will e-mail several pictures of the session to all reporters here as soon as the breakfast ends.

if you would like to ask a question, do the traditional thing and send me a nonthreatening signal, and i will happily call on one and all. i offer our guest the opportunity to make opening remarks, and then we will move to questions around the table. thank you for coming. >> let me begin by saying i was a fan of reagan's, and one of the things i noticed about his conduct on the hill was the way that he and tip o'neill conducted themselves. it was a way in which i think created an atmosphere in which things could he accomplished on the hill. one of my objectives on my committee, the foreign affairs committee, has been to try to create a similar type of dialogue. and with eliot engel, my ranking

member, what we have tried to do is get members involved with foreign affairs, to create an open dialogue, to create a balanced way in which they not only participate, but we had these delegations which are engaged, which we take overseas, whether to ukraine recently or the middle east or to asia, and try to reach a consensus to do our job in a way that provides a united front in terms of the u.s. in these parts of the world. and i would say so far we have been largely successful in that endeavor on the committee. i will give you a few examples of areas that we have been involved in, and then i know what you want to ask questions, but if i could give you some broad issues come about how the united states could be more effective overseas, and one of those has been with our communications. one of the early impacts that affected me was an exchange program years ago when i was in west germany and east germany.

in east germany at that time, i sell what radio free europe, radio liberty, was able to do in order to instruct a generation of young germans in political pluralism, in tolerance, and all these ideals that helped shape and eastern europe in very different attitudes and the bombastic propaganda that was coming over from west germany. instead, by using east german reporters and by having a vision of how we would introduce and balance information, we were able really during the reagan administration, this country was able to reshape the thinking there. what eliot engel and i are trying to do with our overhaul of the broadcasting board of governors and our system of reinvigorating radio free europe, radio liberty, and via, is to get back to that effective type of medication. we have talked to our former secretary of state and others who have testified about this,

secretary clinton and others, and they say the current system is practically defunct. you have passed legislation over to the senate, we are working on this right now, and we believe it could have a very big impact -- it could create a very real change to the way in which we can effectively offset propaganda in russia or lack of information in the middle east, and provide access for people to have more ideas about political pluralism and tolerance in china. on another subject, we have spent a great deal of time on the committee following the situation in iran. remember, for many of these members of the foreign affairs committee, they have a lot of experience over the years with deception on the part of the government in iran. in one of our concerns was to find pressure points where we might be able to get the iranians to the table.

we did that with legislation on sanctions that passed the session. we passed legislation authored by me and co-sponsored by eliot engel, which really gives the ayatollah a choice, a choice between compromise on the nuclear program or economic collapse. we were able to pass that bill out of committee with bipartisan support, unanimously, and passed it off of the floor with 400 votes to 20. administration oppose the legislation, but it was our opinion on the committee, those

of a with experience on foreign affairs, that this type of pressure was necessary in order to be taken seriously in order for the u.s. position to be taken seriously. the administration has helped legislation up in the senate, but we are close to 2/3. and as of the situation continues to drag on, and of course, this week some of you will be following our secretary of state and wendy sherman's further negotiations in vienna, with the iranians on this, but it is a good reminder in terms of the nature of this regime as we now see that these m-302's, these very long-range rockets, which iran transferred to hamas, were launched. it was a reminder that whatever negotiations we have ongoing with iran, there is this history of deception that was shared with us by the international agencies which conduct oversight with respect to the attempts to get iran to comply with the u.n. security council resolutions and with international norms of behavior. so these are some of the issues we are working on. a third issue would be try to open our markets overseas to u.s. exports.

there is this history of deception that was shared with us by the international agencies which conduct oversight with respect to the attempts to get iran to comply with the u.n. security council resolutions and with international norms of behavior. so these are some of the issues we are working on. a third issue would be try to open our markets overseas to u.s. exports. we are in competition with china with two very different models. the united states is trying to sell the ideal of opening to trade to our exports overseas with high standards for intellectual property, high standards with respect to these issues like indigenous innovation and so forth, trying to set a standard that does not allow political pull, but

instead allows the rule of law to comply. we are in competition with china, so political influence is determining at the end of the day what products can enter the country. what we are trying to do with t-tip, with the trade initiative and southeast asia and along the pacific rim is to pull countries together with these high standards. we are attending to do the same thing simultaneously with europe. if we succeed in this, and we will have a world system of high standards -- a high standard agreement, and we will have one that can put an enormous pressure on those countries which seek not to comply with international law. and one of the things we are doing is trying to convince the administration to the more supportive of their own

initiatives here. the administration often announces an initiative, but then does not do anything to support its implementation, and in south asia and east asia that is important. with that said, why don't we open it up your questions. >> i will give you a long-winded question to give you a chance to take a bite of you wish to. let me throw out the ceremonial softball to begin, and that is about what you see as the biggest foreign-policy threat to the u.s. when you were selected as chairman, you spoke of the greatest threats facing u.s. and our allies is iran. is that still your view, sir, or

are there other issues that have eclipsed that in terms of being the most important threat to the u.s.? >> we were on track to take some steps to offset the danger from iran. one of those was the interceptor program that we had worked with the czech republic and poland that if they developed an icbm, and there were actors, and there were worries in europe about what europe did to protect itself, and that program would have protected europe. it also would have protected the united states. with the decision by the president of the united states to pull that system, to not go forward with that system, in order to reset the relationship with russia, in order to meet putin's demands that we not move forward with that system, intended to defend against an iranian launch, we basically left ourselves open. so it is very important that we either succeed in these negotiations with iran and committed not to go forward with its nuclear weapons program, or that we go forward, if we fail to do that, with the initiative that i and eliot engel has authored, which would leave the

ayatollah no choice but to compromise away his nuclear weapons program. our concern is his comment not long ago that the icbm program is a responsibility of the military come and they need to mass-produce icbm's. and obviously, what he is saying, because he is the chief decision-maker, what messages he is sending to his military about ramping up icbm production and refusing to make that part of the agreement leaves those who are worried about security with greatest concerns about the long-term intentions. he continues to say we are the great satan in the world, which would help if he calibrated this rhetoric a little bit.

it leaves those who are worried about security with greatest concerns about the long-term intentions. would help if he calibrated this rhetoric a little bit. not the little satan, the great satan, and giving these attitudes that keep coming out of the ayatollah, yeah, we have security concerns there. >> one more and then we will go to patricia and john. let me ask you about the refugee crisis on the border. we had rick perry here a little while ago, and he contended that during that session what was happening on the southern border was a failure of diplomacy by the united states in working with honduras, el salvador, and guatemala, a failure by the obama administration. is that a contention you agree

with? you have a policy prescription of what obama should be doing about the crisis on the border? >> i suspect what the governor is referring to is the inability of mexico to block the guatemalan border, and that is an area where we could work with the government in mexico in order to help them develop -- and in order to pressure them, friendly, because that is the other part of that equation -- pressure them to seal that border with guatemala, and also the fact that in guatemala and in honduras and el salvador, you have a circumstance where the political leadership there in the government is aiding and abetting this messaging, probably because it partly results in remittances to the extent that these 16-,

17-year-old young people, when the children get to the united states, the expectation is they will find themselves in the work force and that remittances will go back to those countries, and that is an advantage. lastly, it is a pressure valve probably, also, in these governments, and these are largely dysfunctional governments to the extent that the united states weighs in with pressure on these regimes and pushes for policies which are responsible, and also policies that do not encourage the citizens to make this very dangerous trek all the way up through mexico to the u.s. but there is other steps obviously that the administration should be taking, can be taking.

one is the messaging in central america that immigration fraud, those who commit immigration fraud, will be returned. these cases that we speak to our cases of fraud. when you are talking about the original intent to the provisions in the code to protect those who are trafficked for sexual abuse in the united states, the argument that that is going to blanketly cover all central american children who come over the border, that is not true, and the president needs to explain that to audiences in central america, very forcefully, that they are not covered under that provision, and they will be returned. i think that type of messaging will go a long way to change the situation, which is compounding arithmetically. and that is an essential part of the solution.

>> patricia? >> thank you. i would like to ask about iran, the july 20 deadline coming up, and i wanted to get your view of a possible extension [indiscernible] how long of an extension you are comfortable with [indiscernible] and i have a question about -- [indiscernible] i was not sure about the verbiage about the financial system --[indiscernible] some broader nuclear sanctions -- [indiscernible]

>> we have 342 signatures on the house on the letter. again, it conveys the magnitude of the concerns of members of congress, members of congress need to be included in these discussions, and as you know, we went a year without congress being informed. our concern is also on what the iranians claim they will not negotiate on. one that i spoke to earlier was the icbm program, and when you hear the ayatollah call for a massive increase and say that it is every military man's responsibility to be involved in this huge stockpiling of long-range icbm's, it calls into question -- why is that not part of the agreement? why are we not speaking to the issue of their insistence that they continue to be allowed to work on and ever more rapid development of supersonic centrifuges?

why were they want centrifuges that spin ever more rapidly, or if the iranian content is undetected nuclear breakout, then that tells us something about their state of mind. even more so, the fact that they insist on taking this off the table, the fact also that their work on miniaturization of a nuclear warhead. a site, one where the iaea, the international organization that monitors, wants access to that site during these negotiations. we have seen them take several

steps, we have seen them remove dirt from the site where they did their nuclear testing. then we see them bring in new earth in good measure after they knocked down the buildings. we have seen them asphalt the whole area, but they are still too reticent to allow the iaea to come in to check. the checks would follow the other agreements that they had had. if they aren't in the process of violating agreements, how willing are they -- remember reagan's old adage, trust but verify -- how willing are they going to be? we have seen that before with respect to the north korean situation. and having gone down that road before, we want to make sure that this agreement is verifiable.

and so, yes, we are weighed in, and to your question about how long they will draw this out, my suspicion is that they are going to try to play for time, because as they do, they continue to enrich more and more. another observation would be their demand at the end of the day is that the inspection sees after a period of time, say, 10 years, and after that they are treated like any other power on the world stage. with that point, they could go forward without any oversight, without any real ability for us to be able to slow their rush to weaponization. these are all questions that we are concerned about in congress, and this is the very reason why we passed our legislation into the senate. our suspicion was that if the senate could have taken that up, we would have had the necessary leverage to get the agreement needed, because we would have had the pressure with the additional sanctions that would force an agreement that was

verifiable. >> would you agree to an extension? >> would we agree to an extension? the whole problem is they are playing for time. we would have hearings on that. i would consult with eliot engel and the other members of the committee on this subject. we would have to see the details of what we are talking about. but i suspect what i'm going to hear from the members of the committee is this is the very reason why we felt the administration, rather than just stop our legislation in the senate, should have allowed it to go into effect because then the incentive would be not for the iranians to have an extension, but want to get a deal sooner than later, because of the cost on their economy. >> we will go next to john. >> thank you. mr. chairman, you have spoken about streamlining and overhauling the communications network, broadcasting. my question is twofold.

[indiscernible] second, the bush administration placed a high priority on democracy building to the rest of the world, beginning with the president bush's second inaugural address and encouraging country to have a democratic system and have successive free elections. and you have seen some success in the area. has the obama administration abandoned the cause of democracy building? >> let's talk with the first question. right now the bbg is run by part-time or directors, and often cannot even find a quorum to do business. the concept in this legislation -- part of the concept is to take radio free europe, radio free asia, and combine that into one institution, but to put it under a ceo.

and to add to that, an advisory panel that would operate something like the ned, where input could be given on these ideals that i spoke to earlier. what is lacking in many of these societies is the foundation in an understanding of what we take for granted in the system of ours -- freedom of speech, you know? the ability of people to feel secure that they can put out this idea of political pluralism, tolerance as a virtue. these were things that were communicated during the cold war into eastern europe very effectively. how do we know the difference between what would happen to societies that did not hear this message, because we have yugoslavia as an example. the decision was made in the united states never to broadcasting yugoslavia, and i

are member a young croatian journalist, younger than anyone here at this table, who said to me, all we had to listen to was the hate radio coming from the serbs, the hate radio coming from the croats, the hate radio coming from some of the bosnian stations, and he said if we could have ever heard what was broadcast in czechoslovakia -- in czechoslovakia, a partition occurred, first they got their independence, and they partitioned the country without the loss of one life, and he said i listened to vaclav havel talk about what he learned in these broadcast. i never learned that. all i learned was hate. so at a time when russia is really ramping up -- for those of you that are listening to the conspiratorial series that come out these days, at a time when china is also really spinning information, wouldn't it be good if people were grounded in what

we know worked and did what created tolerance? to go to john's point, before we get to elections as part of democracy, there's is a deeper foundation there in human rights. and i would start with that. i would start with this idea of tolerance, the idea of religious tolerance, the ideal of allowing everybody freedom of speech, and in these other more basic concepts. i would gradually go toward democratic governance. i think if we do that, there is a thirst for it. i listen to the broadcasts we do in china, and i listen -- because now we do it in a different dialects. i passed legislation some years ago to do this. and you can see that they are just starting to grapple with some of these best, some of the

foundation of what is really needed to create among the public a desire for more space, for more in the way of rights. and i think, john, if we could do that, it would the administration to be supportive of that in that way, our legislation will probably pass. we are getting a tremendous amount of support. i think we could probably get it through the senate. it would be good that the administration pay attention to it, and i have gotten a lot bipartisan support from those in the past who have been involved in this process of trying to communicate into the societies. i think it is inordinately important. but i think elections is just one note, as a spanish philosopher said, in this whole song of democracy, and it requires a much deeper understanding and it is an evolutionary process for a lot of societies.

>> howard? >> congressman, speaking about the prospects for an iranian nuclear deal, you have mentioned a couple of times they need to get [indiscernible] how do you define that? what is a successful deal? could that include new levels of enrichment? and also, you mentioned that iran may have up to 10 years -- [indiscernible] >> no, that is part of the deal. this is our concern. going beyond the question of enrichment at a level -- we are open on this question of the deal. remember that one of the preconditions in this interim agreement, what iran is saying, we will do this for a while, but 10 years out or whatever the

time, and that has not been agreed to yet, at that point in time the deal is off. at that point in time we are no longer subject -- at that point in time we are treated like the netherlands, germany, or any other country. and given the current behavior of the regime -- remember, we are dealing with a regime in which the executions -- for those of us that are concerned about this concept that the way in which a state treats its own citizens might tell us something about how it might treat others -- we are dealing with a rouhani government in which the number of public executions have increased. for the religious minorities, this is a huge problem because the leadership -- and those who are taught teaching these other religions or involved in political action -- are being taken out and executed. n are ben

out and executed. and so the failure of the government currently in iran to adjust its behavior in terms of how it treats its minority populations gives us pause in much seriousness they are putting into these negotiations, especially when the ayatollah keeps enunciating and rattling the sabers on this issue of mass production of icbm's and so forth. in this environment, yes, we want to see an agreement that we feel is verifiable and not inething just being done this zeal for a deal in order to say we are done with that problem, now we can move on. so i said i am open to the

details of the negotiations. we are open-minded. but i am laying out for you our concerns and the totality of this will all be considered as this agreement comes back. >> bottom line-- >> i am trying to work with my committee and with the administration in a way in which we are open in this negotiation, but at the end of the day, this has to be a serious negotiation that prevents undetectable nuclear breakout by the arriving in -- by the iranian regime. >> michael? what youed to hear could say about the supreme leader, and whether you feel that you understand him completely. his rhetoric is bellicose, and ts ofovokes that chann death to america. [indiscernible]

members of congress do not talk to him. and he has shown flashes of pragmatism during his tenure. tohas allowed his country modernize in some ways. do you feel that you understand what is in his head, and do you think we are in essence kind of a form of total conflict with him, or do you think he is someone over the long term we could trust? >> i had a conversation with a high-ranking official in china, a premier in china, on this subject, and as he said, we understand why you think that the end of the day, why america felt beijing -- what america felt moscow would be a rational actorld be an irrational with respect to the nuclear programs, why you felt beijing would be an irrational actor.

we understand why you feel that iran might not be a rational actor. this is the question that goes to. this is a different kind of government, a different type of thought process. you i feel i understand the ayatollah? no, we do not understand him, but this is why this old adage trust but verify -- we have to have a verifiable agreement and we are dealing with someone who has used the type of rhetoric that he has used towards the united states, and not just towards the united states. remember, this is a regime that has called for limiting israel from the map. my father reminds me, when somebody talks about eliminating 6 million jews, we do not have an excuse having gone to the history of what happened in the of ignoring940's

that individual. and somebody says along the lines of what was put into "mein a race about eliminating of people, or in this context, eliminating israel, and in his mind israel is the little satan, we are the big satan. he has been very vocal about his animus toward other religions, and especially towards a society that believes in freedom of religion like our own. and so in this context, it is wise to be able to guarantee the security of the west in these negotiations with iran. >> [indiscernible] revelationss on the of spying in germany -- are you worried about the [indiscernible]

the u.s. posture is hurting relations with the country? i would like your thoughts -- >> i met yesterday with a delegation from germany on this and as you can see, with the decision to remove the station chief in germany, you can see how seriously this situation is taken in germany. by the government. is that it would say germane wise for the elected representatives to the activities of their own intelligence services to the theth respect with respect to the

issue, in terms of perspective. >> [indiscernible] i think i put it effectively. >> [indiscernible] >> yes. >> president putin is king off a tour of latin america. policy and on u.s. the sign of -- he has gone before, but -- >> sure. i think with respect to president vladimir putin, i think that putin is very focused on the past. i had a chance to meet with him when he was vice chairman -- petersburg inst. the early 1990's, here in washington, d.c.

and i think that he has a certain attitude about the united states that comes out of his feelings about the dissolution of the soviet union. realities is i do not think that attitude is going to change much. it has been held for a long time. , what the questions is can we do to introduce other russians to information that is reliable so that the conspiratorial theories that are todayt in russian society and among russian-speaking populations in eastern europe, in the former soviet union where this is particularly present, is broadcast? this is an individual who over the last few years is now -- has

now consolidated all information under his control. maybe one orto two newspapers left in moscow, virtually the entire country is governed by a communications system, radio and television, controlled by vladimir putin and his allies. thato can we recognizing there probably will not be surprises here -- he will go to cuba and work with those hastries that he views as been confrontational with the united states, but what can we do to reach the next generation of russians so that they understand that the challenges that russia will face in the future, especially with respect to this radical jihad -- mine whoo friends of and i got to duma,

know them on trips back and forth. and in talking with them, their focus is on the future, and what do they do about the virtual caliphate that is radicalizing young people -- they are muslim -- and in their state, this information that is coming in on the internet, their access to the internet, as well as imams that are coming in and radicalizing youth, they whereis as an area russia and united states should be cordon mating a response to confront this problem and recognizing the true threats long-term to our societies. that is where a lot of our efforts should go, is speaking to duma members and others in russia's and society said that as this problem is and fight in southern russia -- and you can see what is happening in

on almost a monthly basis now with serious attacks, and it is the local muslim community that bears the brunt of this, how could we work with russia on some of these very real challenges going forward? i wanted to shift to a different part of the world, and speak to you about east asia. you have been very outspoken on mr. chairman, and it is sort of something that continues to dog relations between south korea and japan, and it is also an issue to the u.s. i wanted to get your thoughts on should each actions side take in order to improve relations generally and -- [indiscernible] >> early on before some of these

latest statements came out of to thei conveyed inretary of state and others the administration the importance of getting ahead of this, because it was clear that abehin his political party was moving in a direction of ofense nationalism that sort was reaching back and trying to rewrite the history of what happened during the occupation of entry, during the korean on korean occupation, during the second world war, and this would probably further ignite apprehension in korea come in china, and around the region, and that we had a lot of in termsound with abe

of things we could work on, but that he needs to back away from this road on not just the -- issue, but also on some of these his politicalt party is making about japanese the japanesell and imperial army during the war. i think it is very unfortunate that he has gone down this road. i have spoken to him about it. i have spoken to his cabinet members about it. and i have spoken to members of the japanese diet in order to privately convince them that raising these issues is interest in terms of japanese interests and frankly creates a tremendous amount of instability in the region. and our goal clearly is to make the region more stable. that will mean more economic growth. enormousates has interest. look at where the economic growth is happening in the next

decade, this is the region, and this is very unsettling, and it is a flashpoint that we have to handle. quicktime check. we have 15 minutes left, and lots of people who want to ask questions. we will and at 10:00 in order to keep our deal with the chairman. >> thank you. on syria [indiscernible] enough time [indiscernible] and that also on afghanistan,

are you worried that the longer the election drags on it will be less likely that we might [indiscernible] first, on this issue of syria i give elliott angle of new york and armour's credit. three years ago government elliott explaining -- three years ago i remember how it explaining there were no foreign isghters, there was no is interior. you have the free syrian army, representative of not just a diverse religious and ethnic groups, but it is attempting to hold the country together. so it in and support this. we had the french ambassador are doing the same thing. meeting after meeting, we conveyed this. i personally spoke to the president about this once, but on up throughout the administration, we have pushed for about three years' time to

get support to the free syrian army. so now we are three years later, and we are talking about doing this, and in the meantime isis, the foreign fighters came in, they established this each head, and nothing was done to dislodge it. assad himself did not attack until recently. he could be pounding them with the help of hezbollah and help from forces in iran. and at the same time they would have to contend with their bitteroperation -- opposition. frankly, we should taken the advice and supported that free syrian army early on. in terms of afghanistan and the elections, another area where we force, when they were pushing out the international observers in the

second round, the united states should have been much more forceful. we should force an audit of the election. we should get the international community in there. we should not allow karzai to wave us off, because at the end of the day he is not interested in anything except for longing this. we need a quick resolution in the election of the duly elected president to replace karzai in afghanistan. and then we can get the agreement. back to iran, kerry is going to vienna, but lavrov is not. there is an indication that there is a rift growing between united states and russia within the talks. do you know anything about that? >> no, i don't. about that rift, i do not. arehe people in moscow who

saying that the united states are dragging its feet in the talks, that they are the ones were stalling. >> i can imagine they can believe anything in moscow, because it is a conspiratorial mindset right now in terms of the way they view the united states. i do not know that to be the case at all. congressman, thank you so much for covering so much ground here. can i just drag you back. a few minutes ago it, it sounds like you've veered into saying that you had a private conversation with z-- >> i said the premier. >> and you were speaking quietly for a second. he was telling you that -- >> no, i was just explaining the view from china that they can believe why we can

understand that iran is not a national actor in the sense that moscow and in a sense that aging and in the sense that washington, d.c., are rational actors. i have laid out our concerns, that hecknowledged could understand those concerns, and that is what he was expressing. >> thank you for doing this. i want to take you back to germany. hadions over surveillance been brewing for a year. you think the administration could have been more to defuse this, and what can you tell us about their efforts? >> i do not know how much the administration could have done to defuse it. i know what we are trying to do with our discussions. >> do you feel the germans are being overly sensitive? >> obviously, as i stated -- as ihim a before the

stated earlier, for the germans cast aspersions about this subject, i think elected representatives in germany should inquire about what the of their intelligence services are. i think it might put it inward perspective. >> the germans have been asking for some sort of [indiscernible] to show some respect to the german people and the the same respect -- understand, but i do not know the details of those negotiations between the white house and the chancellor. so i cannot speak -- >> can you speak to what you think they should do? know, i think, given the circumstances, the administration is attempting, i think, at this time to deal with the german government, and i am

hopeful that they are successful. >> thank you. >> thank you. another thing you said, i never have been able to wrap my head about the idea that the senate had to pass the men then this -- sanctions before we could approve the deal? >> if they passed it, they overcame harry reid's support. you have had 2/3 in the senate. more than 2/3 in the house. where do we remember sanctions like this in the past? ronald reagan proposing sanctions for south africa. they were successful. what we have? cymer lumbers into -- similar numbers in the house and senate. and what happened because of the got sanctionswe

on south africa. what were the consequences of that? not only the end of apartheid, but they gave back the nuclear weapon to the international community. they handed it over and said we cannot survive under the types of economic sanctions, and those were the types of sanctions each was in this the discussions, -- in this legislation, the sections which the former secretary of treasury helped develop as a blueprint that we would need for north korea, if we ever imposed it, what we would need on iran in order to give them the choice but to compromise. >> doesn't that's just that the iranians do not know that congress is blocked the past patient, even though the house has passed the sanctions, 60 cosponsors have signed on. the administration is saying we cannot do it now, it might blow up the deal, but we will also oppose sanctions if the deal does go through. >> wait a minute, wait a minute.

you are assuming everybody is as sophisticated as those around this table in the way that the political process works in terms of the house and the senate. all they see is where is the political will in the united states? if it passes and if it is vetoproof, it is then law. that is law and is something they have to pay attention to. if it does not, then that is something they do not do with. we talked a little bit about the distance that the ayatollah has. is the ayatollah himself who is making the decision on this. he is the fellow who picked the half-dozen candidates who said they could run. rouhani was one of them. how much does he understand? there are either those types of crippling sanctions or the there are not. because of the opposition of the administration, that legislation did not go to the senate because we were just shy of the 2?/3

we needed. >> you were critical of giving -- legal rights, and now he has had an appearance before a judge him. what are you thinking about the trial? >> i was not critical of giving him legal writes. i was critical of was giving him the full legal rights that every american citizen has. an enemy combatant i would argue does not have those full legal rights, including miranda rights. and in my view, mr. ka tallah, having been in full you and then a half-dozen interviews with major news networks, including some at this table, having done that in libya, some his his resort or his home, seaside home, being in foreign

view for so many months, it would have been much more practical to take him into custody, they have him go to the do the thorough investigative process, which may have given us the leads to more of those involved in his terrorist network in libya. and so i think we missed that opportunity. second, i think transferring him to trial to washington dc, -- washington, d.c., ideally you would transfer him to guantanamo bay. the secondary choice would be the southern district of new york where we would have the expertise to do with this, to have a relatively new prosecutor to this type of case and having it done in washington, d.c., i think is to lose opportunity to get information that could help additional terrorist activity, because in the past we --e able when we took table

people into custody, and we interrogated them, we were able to get actual intelligence that better protected the security of the united states and our allies. >> do you think the administration's actions regarding the president of iraq are sufficient? >> have our actions been sufficient? no. our actions in our dealings with the government in iraq have not been sufficient, and it was very necessary in the past for the united states to lean very heavily on the government, especially on maliki. if you were to point to one thing that has unraveled our ability of iraq as a cohesive it is theesist isis, decisions made by mr. maliki. awesomeously, he is so

-- he has so ostracized the sunni and kurdish community, but on top of that his decision to go to the military -- he just put his son -- for those of you who saw that -- his son is now in charge of the military in iraq. he has gone to the officer corps and removed a competent officers and instead put in his friend. any of those friends have no takes brains whatsoever. the troops have no confidence in the officer corps as a consequence of the decision to sack the senior officers. you have an individual here who go, andp down, who must you saw health the stony -- al -sistani, you saw the shia religious leader explained the necessity of an to stepping down, that is absolutely true. he has got to go, and then cohesively, the iranian state is a viable iran

institution if you are inclusive with the different ethnic groups in the country. and religious groups in the country, it is very unfortunate that more pressure was not fun have throughout the process, and he has eroded the position of the iraqi state as result. >> two minutes left. a quick one? >> the situation in israel, especially with the july 20 deadline coming up with the negotiations with a rand. is the situation in israel going to affect the iranian negotiations, or will it change what the catalyst is? >> i do not know if it changes our calculus, but there's one aspect of what is happening, and i saw this myself. i was in israel during the second lebanon war, and i was in haifa when these rockets were

coming in. the question was, who was the enabler? who allowed hezbollah at that point in time to have the wherewithal to blanket that city? i was in a hospital, 600 victims and their. the answer was it was iran and it was serious. so in this circumstance, who is mas?enabler for ha where did they it does rockets? the answer, iran. the fact that iran would transfer the longer-range rockets that could hit tel aviv and jerusalem and that they are firing them off, and the fact that they have gotten such a massive inventory, which is much how iran has put into this, that does raise the issue of how iran is a proliferator, right? so that is the other aspect of what we worry about a little bit when we are trying to negotiate with iran. how do you stop this penchant for proliferation, which they do with rockets and missiles and other types of ordnance?

>> that is a nice and. thank you for doing it. >> thank you. thank you for the opportunity. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] let our republicanism not the affected by unthinking and stupid labels. you thatemind extremism in the defense of

liberty is no vice. [applause] thank you. [applause] thank you. also that you moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. [applause] senator goldwater's acceptance

speech at the 1960 four republican convention. this weekend on american history tv's railamerica -- real america. >> defense secretary chuck hagel held a news conference after meeting with the defense minister of japan. they touched on the tensions in the middle east, the recent announcement of japanese collective self-defense, and strengthening alliance with pacific rim nations. this is 25 minutes. >> good afternoon. i very much appreciate the

opportunity this afternoon to welcome back my friend, minister onodera. he has been in the united states most of the week. he was recently in omaha and brought me back and asked -- a nebraska pin, which he is proudly displaying over here. and if you are wondering what that flower is, that is the goldenrod, the nebraska state flower. you don't know everything about nebraska, but that is a good start. this is our sixth meeting in, i think, a little over a year.

and i want to thank minister onodera the role that he has played in strengthening our relationship. he made a trip not just to nebraska, but to other states to get acquainted with what we are doing, which is important in our alliance and in our partnership and friendship. when he was in omaha on wednesday, he not only visited our strategic command headquarters, but he also got a nebraska steak, and he, i'm told, stopped by the university of nebraska at omaha, where he visited my senate archive. he asked to see my old university of nebraska at omaha yearbook and examined my picture.

i don't know if he asked to see my grades or any other in-depth questions, but we hope not. [laughter] minister, your visit means a great deal. it means a great deal to me personally, but to our two countries and our partnership and our alliance. we are not just partners, but friends. and some of you may know that when secretary kerry and i visited japan last october for our two plus two meeting, it happened to be my birthday. some of you may have been on that trip and some of you might recall that minister onodera gave me a birthday present. he gave me headphones that i can use when i swim. he assured me that they would allow me to swim longer and faster, but alas, to no avail so

far. but i keep trying. minister, i know that you are a tennis player and you don't swim very often, so i wanted to present something to you that may help your game. what i'm about to present is -- this is a university of nebraska at omaha tennis shirt. [laughter] and you get a university of omaha tennis team outfit. you shall be trimmed, slim, fast on the court, and you will live longer. >> thank you. [laughter] [applause] >> today, the minister and i

discussed in our meeting prior to this conference what the united states and japan are doing together to modernize our alliance, and to ensure it has prepared this alliance to address emerging threats and challenges. as you all know, last week on the day that marked the 60th anniversary of japan's self-defense forces, prime minister abbé's moved to reinterpret the japanese constitution to allow for self-defense. this bold, historic, landmark decision will enable japan to significantly increase its contribution to regional and global security, and expand its role on the world stage. our government strongly supports

the decision made by prime minister abbé and his cabinet. the japanese government's decision will also enable historic revisions to the u.s.-japan guidelines. at our two plus two meeting last october, we announced then a comprehensive review of these guidelines. i discussed the review with prime minister abe and mr. -- minister onodera today, and we confirmed that those new guidelines should be in place by the end of this year. together, japan's collective self-defense decision and the revised guidelines will allow japan to participate more actively in areas such as ballistic missile defense,

counter-proliferation, counter piracy, peacekeeping, and a wide range of military exercises. the united states and japan will also be able to work more closely together on maritime security, humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, and other areas. we can raise our alliance to a new level, and we intend to do that. today, japan also has 50,000 american troops and their families, and we thank them for their continued hospitality and support. this troop presence is critical to our asia-pacific rebalance and we are working together to ensure it remains sustainable over the long term. we are continuing to make progress toward construction of the replacement facility, and the relocation of our marine air station. the dod remains committed to being a good neighbor and to mitigating the impact of our military presence in okinawa. next week, we will begin transferring a kc-130 and we discussed additional steps we

intend to take. we also discussed security in the broader asia-pacific region. we held trilateral meetings with south korea and australia in may and we will build on that progress. and i reiterate america's long-standing position on the sink coup islands, which are under japan's administrative control, and therefore fall under our mutual security treaty. as i have said clearly and consistently, secretary kerry noted this as well, the united states opposes any attempts by any country to change the status quo through destabilizing unilateral actions and we oppose any effort to restrict overflight. we are working on a constructive relationship with china will stop the dialogue, which concluded yesterday in beijing,

is an example, and both japan and china are participating, along with 20 other asian nations from around the world. the united states and japan's treaty alliance has been a foundation for peace, prosperity, and stability in the asia-pacific region for more than six decades. minister onodera and i are committed to making sure it remains that way for decades to come. minister, thank you for your partnership. thank you for your friendship. and thank you particularly for not asking about my college transcripts. now, i will ask minister onodera for his comments and then we will take questions. thank you.

>> [translator] i am delighted to be here, and delighted to travel to omaha and two washington, d.c. in omaha, i enjoyed a nebraska steak. i would like many japanese people to enjoy this delicious beef. and also, i was delighted to see a picture of young secretary hagel, and it is very disappointing that i cannot share the picture with you. but he was like a rockstar to me. and regarding his transcript, i guess this is classified information. and thank you for the beautiful gift. and i would like to use the

training wear, so i can train myself. i hope that you still use the headset, which is by sony. and i heard that you listen to the beatles music, so i appreciate you enjoying them. but first, i explain the summary of the recent security legislation. specifically, i will explain that bearing in mind that u.s. forces and the self-defense forces closely cooperate and respond seamlessly to varying situations. the government as a whole will work on issues, such as self-defense measures permissible under article nine of the japanese constitution, as well as legislation to protect weapons and u.s. forces engaged

in act in defense of japan. as well as u.s. forces. secretary hagel has offered support, as it will enhance japan's role in the regional alliance and contribute to peace and stability. based on the decision, secretary hagel and i agreed to continue to focus on the revision of the 1997 guidelines for the japan-u.s. defense cooperation and the interim report on the revision will be released at an appropriate timing, so we can provide transparency for related countries. we also agreed to further deepen the specific bilateral cooperation on equipment and technology. and we would like to deepen our

cooperation in accordance. with regard to the realignment of the impact mitigation in okinawa, i explained the progress of the construction project at the replacement facility. secretary hagel and i agreed to quickly implement the realignment of u.s. forces in japan, including the relocation of a camp in hinoko. secretary hagel and i agreed we would close the work together on the relocation of the c-130 squadron. in this context, i raised the

issue of the aircraft flying from the outside. secretary hagel affirmed that the u.s. is committed to reducing the u.s. presence in okinawa. regarding the regional situation, we agreed to continue to oppose any unilateral cooperation in the china sea area. i explained updates on the relationship between japan and north korea. and i gave a thorough explanation about the japanese abductees within north korea. and also, i explained our position regarding ballistic missiles, receiving the north korean launch of ballistic missiles just recently.

through close communication with secretary hagel, the japan-u.s. bilateral cooperation should be stronger and it will strengthen our regional peace. and contribute to economic growth of japan, as well as the asia-pacific region. thank you very much. >> mr. secretary, a set -- a question for you about the israeli bombing in gaza. i know that your office put out a statement today saying that you had talked to the minister of israel reaffirming israel's right to defend itself, while also urging restraint. can you be more specific about the acceptable limits of israeli action in gaza? would you draw the line, for example, of the use of ground

forces in gaza? and lastly, how do you respond to critics who say that the is violating international law? >> i did speak with the israeli minister for some time this morning. as you know, president obama spoke to prime minister netanyahu last night, and we essentially covered the same language and the same issues. i spoke to the minister this morning on updates as to the questions. first, i think it is important to remember, and president obama mentioned this yesterday, and i did today, that israel has the right to defend itself. any country does. that right includes what they think they need to do to defend themselves.

we made it clear, both president obama last night as well as in my conversation with the minister today, that we want to do everything we can to help stop what is going on. and encourage all sides to not escalate and not let these hostilities get out of control any more than they are and that we would be available to play a role in helping do that. it is important that those efforts to rein in any further escalation be worked on, and we are committed to do that. so we will stay in touch with the israelis on this.

there are possibilities of third parties that could help out in this effort as well, so we are exploring all options to assist in this effort. >> will the introduction of ground forces change the picture? >> i am not going to get into any of the what-ifs. i think i would just let stand what i have just said. >> i will take a question from the japanese press. this question is for both minister onodera and secretary hagel. recent decision includes responding to so-called gray

zone situations where infringement from the outside does not amount to an armed attack, in essence allowing the use of collective -- japan will revise the guidelines that reflect the recent cabinet decision, while china repeatedly invades the territorial islands, and while the tengion in the -- tension in the east china sea increases, if infringement like this takes place in the islands, will japan and the u.s. jointly respond to the situation? what will the new guidelines change, sponsored by the china and the united states? so i would like to take the answer. discussions regarding the guidelines for u.s.japan defense cooperation are ongoing, and we

are not an appropriate timing to provide any conrecte content yet, but i will continue working on this vigorously based on the cabinet decision. and when we evaluate the timing it is appropriate, we will release an interim report. and also with japan with related countries. the guideline is to ensure stability and peace in the region, but this is not for putting scenarios of certain responses. but we would like to consider that japan and the u.s. will cooperate seamlessly in peacetime to contingencies,

including gray zones. so we would like to achieve regional peace and stability. i would like you to understand that guidelines are not for specific scenarios, but for ensuring security and safety in the region. secretary hagel, i would like to ask one more question, which is what kind of roles and missions do you expect from the forces based on the recent cabinet decision, in addition to the previous question? >> i would think just as minister onodera said, they are in the process of defining those guidelines. what exactly they mean, what are the definitions. and that is the responsibility of the japanese government and people of japan. thank you. >> next question. >> mr. secretary, iraqi military officers are saying that iran and russia are conducting attacks on sunni targets in iraq.

is it not militarily responsible for the u.s. not to coordinate the iranians and the russians, given the number of u.s. surveillance flights? also the, presence of u.s. troops on the ground? >> united states is not coordinating military efforts or exercises or missions with iran or russia. what we are doing is assisting the iraqi security forces. and that is what we will continue to do. as you know, we are just finishing up with our assessment teams there, and they will be providing some recommendations and guidance based on those assessments. we are aware of the iranian and russian efforts to help the iraqis, but we are not involved in coordinating any missions.

>> secretary hagel, this is a question about north korea. the japanese have lifted their own sanctions on north korea, because [indiscernible] on the japanese -- have conducted the investigation. regarding japan going into the situation, can you share opinions on this matter, and will kind of opinions did you exchange with minister onodera? i am sorry, go ahead. >> thank you. minister onodera and i did talk about this issue, and he explained to me as he and his

government have explains this situation and actions taken to our government, as he has explained, and we are aware, the japanese government has lifted some of the unilateral sanctions against north korea. we understand that there are humanitarian issues involved for the japanese people. but minister onodera made clear, as well as we have been told by the japanese government, that north korea's nuclear threats, missile threats, are still a threat to all of us. that does not change. we are in absolute agreement on that point, and we will continue to work together, as we are with the republic of korea. one of the points that minister onodra made in this issue, as well as other issues, was the

importance of transparency, of letting their partners know of what they are doing and why they're doing it, and that i think is particularly important, and i applaud the japanese government for taking that approach to this issue. thank you. >> we're done for today. >> thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] with eventsn touch from the nation's capital using any phone, anytime. dial to hear congressional coverage and washington team journal. atr recap of the events

five: 30 p.m. -- 5:30 p.m. eastern. assistance -- long or phone charges may apply. >> eric holder spoke to diplomats at the u.s. embassy in norway on tuesday. he talked about the conflict in syria and ways the international community, especially europe, could assist. as is about 20 minutes. >> attorney general, eric holder, to the podium. [applause] >> good afternoon. good afternoon. [laughter] that is a norwegian custom. people don't respond. [laughter] thank you for that wonderful introduction, and thank you for a warm welcome. tion, and thank r

a warm welcome. ladies and gentlemen, distinguished guests, leaders and citizens -- it is a pleasure to be in norway. and it's a great privilege to be in the beautiful city of oslo today. i'd like to thank the norwegian government -- and especially prime minister solberg and minister of justice anundsen, with whom i met earlier today -- for their hospitality. i'd also like to recognize our charge, julie furuta-toy, and the hardworking men and women of the u.s. embassy for bringing us together -- and for all that they do, every day, to advance our shared interests. it's an honor to join them -- and to stand with all of you -- in strengthening the ties that bind our nations together-- in discussing some of the most critical challenges the international community must confront, and in reaffirming our mutual commitment to the values we share, and the high ideals -- of democracy, liberty, and equal justice under law -- that have

defined our nations' friendship over the past two centuries. that friendship, and those values, have deep roots. norwegian-americans have played an important role in the development of our country. and your citizens and values have had an impact around the world. two hundred years ago, norway ratified a constitution that asserted certain essential and immutable rights. through centuries of triumph and challenge, our people and our governments have both been guided by a shared understanding that "all people are born free and equal." today, norway is a leader in extending worldwide the promise of equality and justice, through its own development work overseas, and through its support of international institutions. and norway leads global efforts to address urgent threats -- most recently in syria, where norwegian and american personnel are working side-by-side to rid that country of chemical weapons. around the world, norway is

recognized as a champion of democracy and human rights. and, for decades, you've been leading by example. after all, as history teaches us -- and as you've seen here in norway and we in the united states -- progress is not inevitable. and our democratic values, our open societies -- and our commitment to tolerance and inclusion -- must be continuously protected against agents of intolerance, extremism, and hate. particularly when hatred and extremism take expression in acts of violence and terror, we must be resolute in our protection of equal rights, democracy, and the rule of law. and we must be both innovative and aggressive in combating violent extremism in all its forms. it was just three years ago this month that norway endured devastating attacks on the government quarter of oslo and a workers' youth league summer camp -- heinous acts that

shocked citizens everywhere, and earned swift condemnation and sympathy from around the world -- as president obama stated, our hearts went out to you. horrific crimes like these are not only terrible tragedies for the individuals and the nations targeted-- they test our fortitude and challenge the very foundations of who we are. yet norway has not faltered or changed its values -- and is an example for the world in this regard as well. like norway, the united states is all too familiar with domestic threats, having suffered deadly attacks on our soil -- including against government buildings, places of worship, and sporting events. these attacks, like the attacks you suffered here in norway, share a common theme: they are attacks on tolerance, in the name of violent extremist ideologies. under the obama administration, while we have acted to protect our country and our allies, we have also redoubled our commitment to civil rights and

to tolerance. this is what violent extremists most fear, for their goal is to undermine open societies. at the same time, we also have joined with our international partners to ensure that there is no impunity for those who seek to commit terrorist attacks. now, norway, the united states, and countries around the world face a new threat -- the possibility that violent extremists fighting today in syria, iraq, or other locations may seek to commit acts of terror tomorrow in our countries as well. u.s. intelligence officials estimate that nearly 23,000 violent extremists are currently operating in syria. among these are over 7,000 foreign fighters -- among whom are dozens of americans, a number that is growing. we have a mutual and compelling interest in developing shared strategies for confronting the influx of u.s.- and european-born violent extremists

into syria. and because our citizens can freely travel, visa-free, from the u.s. to norway and other european states -- and vice versa -- the problem of fighters in syria returning to any of our countries is a problem for all of our countries. this is a global crisis in need of a global solution. the syrian conflict has turned that region into a cradle of violent extremism. but the world cannot simply sit back and let it become a training ground from which our nationals can return and launch attacks. and we will not. in the face of a threat so grave, we cannot afford to be passive. rather, we need the benefit of investigative and prosecutorial tools that allow us to be preemptive in our approach to confronting this problem. if we wait for our nations' citizens to travel to syria or

iraq, to become radicalized, and to return home, it may be too late to adequately protect our national security. that's why we need to adopt a multilateral four-pronged strategy to combat this threat, to counter violent extremism in all its forms, and to keep our citizens safe. the first element of our united approach must be to ensure that there are laws in our systems that enable governments to properly police that threat. in its rabat memorandum, the global counterterrorism forum -- a group of 30 countries from around the world, working in partnership with the un -- stated that "criminalizing preparatory acts, such as conspiracy, terrorist fundraising, terrorist recruitment, planning and training, particularly when a terrorist attack has not yet been carried out, is vital in an effective criminal justice preventive approach to counterterrorism." in this regard, the u.s. relies

on a statute that criminalizes the providing of "material support to terrorist organizations." our material-support law, which was originally enacted in 1994 and amended after the attacks in new york on september 11, 2001, bars not only contributions of personnel, cash, weapons and other tangible aid to designated terrorist organizations, but also intangible means of support -- such as training, service, and expert advice or assistance. similarly, in 2013, norway amended its laws to criminalize preparatory acts to terrorism, including training for terrorism, preparation for terrorism and participation in a terrorist organization. likewise, in 2012, france enacted a new statute that enables prosecutors to charge individuals with "criminal association with the intent to commit terrorist acts."

earlier this year, french authorities sentenced the nation's first three defendants under this new law-- all three were plotting to travel to syria. today, i urge governments around the world to consider similar measures that criminalize the preparatory acts committed by those with terrorist plans. the second part of our comprehensive strategy looks to ensure that we have in place law enforcement investigative tools and techniques that are both effective and protective of individual rights and the rule of law. in this regard, we have found undercover operations -- which the federal bureau of investigation pioneered in fighting transnational organized crime -- to be essential in fighting terrorism as well. in the united states, the fbi has already conducted undercover operations that have identified individuals with intentions to travel to syria. these operations are conducted with extraordinary care and precision, ensuring that law

enforcement officials are accountable for the steps they take -- and that suspects are neither entrapped nor denied legal protections. here, too, the global counterterrorism forum's rabat memorandum calls for such techniques to be applied in countries around the world: one of the "good practices" it advocates is that countries "provide a legal framework and practical measures for undercover investigations of terrorist suspects or organizations." third: in order to further our investigative capabilities, we must strengthen international cooperation, in a variety of respects. as an initial matter, we must prioritize the sharing of traveler information as a potential way to prevent would-be foreign fighters from going to syria in the first place -- and tracking those who come back. the united states is committed to doing its part in this regard. as we speak, through law

enforcement agencies such as the fbi, u.s. authorities are working with interpol to disseminate information on foreign fighters. we encourage other countries to use interpol -- and interpol notices -- to combat the foreign-fighter phenomenon. and we are actively supporting interpol's fusion cell, which focuses on information-sharing relating to foreign fighters. in fact, the u.s. has provided personnel, including fbi agents, to support this specialized office. while we are committed to ensuring that we protect the safety of our fellow citizens, we are also committed to protecting their privacy. alongside policymakers in brussels, we're also working to attain an "umbrella" data-sharing agreement between the united states and the european union, that would strengthen the already strong protections that are presently in existence and that ensure that law enforcement information is shared effectively, and in accordance with data privacy principles. this agreement will guarantee that there will be no

diminishment of the key exchanges of law enforcement information, including terrorism information, that is critical to the safety of citizens in europe, the u.s., and around the world. and as a step to advance this endeavor, last month -- in athens -- i announced a united states commitment that the obama administration would seek legislation to create the ability -- for non-u.s. persons -- to seek judicial redress for access and rectification, and for willful or intentional disclosure, of law enforcement information transferred to the united states. this is an historic commitment by the united states to extend privacy protections beyond u.s. persons in this context. it is imperative that we reach an "umbrella" agreement in this regard as soon as possible. the time for posturing has long past. it is time for nations that have long shared fundamental views about privacy to act together. countries must also effectively use mutual legal assistance and

extradition to counter foreign fighters. here, too, the rabat memorandum of the global counterterrorism forum is instructive: "because terrorism often transcends national boundaries, timely and effective international cooperation is indispensable to a criminal justice response to terrorism." through international mutual legal assistance, the u.s. department of justice has provided evidence to countries for use in prosecutions of terrorist organizations -- including terrorist groups that were recruiting others to fight in syria. we continue to assist foreign partners around the globe by acting on mutual legal assistance requests and providing evidence to support those criminal investigations and prosecutions. and we believe it's critical that countries develop their abilities to effectively engage in mutual legal assistance -- including by strengthening their central authorities -- so that we can work together to counter this shared threat.

international cooperation also means working together to build the capacity of other nations, as norway does in so many different contexts. norwegian and u.s. department of justice legal advisors have worked together to build rule of law in georgia and moldova. and to enhance similar efforts on a global scale, the u.s. department of justice is providing capacity-building assistance to help our partners build fair and transparent justice systems that will allow their countries to confront transnational crime and terrorism, including the problem of foreign fighters. applying the standards of the un counterterrorism treaties, and the best practices of the rabat memorandum, our capacity-building work, and that of our foreign partners, has helped advance laws permitting police and prosecutors to more effectively investigate and prosecute suspected foreign fighters, within the rule of law -- leading to the disruption of foreign fighters and the dismantlement of organizations that recruit would-be fighters to travel to syria. through ongoing programs in

places such as the balkans, africa, and elsewhere, we continue to work with international partners to help them stem the flows of foreign fighters-- to use the tools they have to more effectively impede their movements-- and to assist in the investigation and prosecution of foreign fighters once captured. today, i challenge additional nations to step forward, as norway has. commit to robust, and privacy-protective, data-sharing in service of our mutual security. pledge support for interpol's "transnational fighter initiative." support mutual legal assistance and capacity building. and urge others to do their part by participating fully in these efforts -- which will be effective only to the extent that they are as comprehensive as possible. the fourth and final element of our strategy is founded on the

notion that strong laws, effective investigative tools, and robust information-sharing must be matched with public engagement -- and extensive community outreach. we must seek to stop individuals from becoming radicalized in the first place by putting in place strong programs to counter violent extremism in its earliest stages. in my time here in norway, i have had the chance to learn about -- and have been deeply impressed by -- norway's action plan against radicalization and violent extremism. indeed, i have found it critical to engage in international exchanges with my counterparts regarding how we can do better on combating radicalization, and to learn from each other. i will take home with me important lessons from norway's experience. these lessons will help us implement our own national strategy and strategic implementation plan, which is led by the justice department, the fbi, the department of homeland security, and the national counterterrorism center.

our approach depends on building mutual trust and respect with members of communities across the country -- so that we can understand their needs and concerns and to foster open dialogue with community leaders and citizens. this enables us to work with them to mitigate tensions and identify emerging threats. at the heart of these engagement efforts in the united states are our united states attorneys, the chief federal prosecutors in each of the jurisdictions they serve. since 2012, our u.s. attorneys have held or attended more than 1,700 engagement-related events. and the resulting relationships have not only served to build trust. they have also produced valuable cooperation, in some cases spurring community members to alert law enforcement about individuals who show an inclination to turn to violence. across the united states and in

countries around the world, such counter-radicalization programs show significant promise. they serve our broader aim of fostering tolerance, inclusion, and understanding -- which are themselves powerful tools against violent extremism. but ultimately, our goal must be not just to fight radicalization or apprehend dangerous individuals. at its core, this work is about forging more just and open societies -- and building a more peaceful world. that's why it's especially fitting that we recommit ourselves to these efforts here in oslo -- where so many of mankind's highest ideals and aspirations have been recognized. for more than a century, this city has welcomed some of the most devoted peacemakers the world has ever known -- from the reverend dr. martin luther king, jr., who advocated for "a more noble civilization" in the midst of america's long night of racial injustice-- to nelson mandela, who insisted that "an injury to one is an injury to

all." throughout history, these pioneers of peace have called us to recognize that our capacity for courage has no limit. the struggle for human rights, civil rights, and equal justice knows no borders or boundaries. yet their stories also remind us that, for all the progress that they have made possible, our journey still stretches beyond the horizon. and our work has no end. you know as well as anyone that the work ahead will not be easy. none of the challenges we face are simple or straightforward. we will suffer setbacks. but so long as we remain committed to standing together, working together, and striving together -- as people of courage, as leaders of conviction, and as nations of high ideals -- i cannot help but feel optimistic about where our joint efforts will lead us. i thank you all, once again, for your leadership, your collaboration, and your friendship. and i look forward to everything the united states and the kingdom of norway will achieve

together in the months and years to come. thank you. >> next, vice president biden speaking at the national governors association. after that, i house floor debate on-- a house floor debate depreciation legislation. >> 40 years ago, the watergate scandal led to the only resignation of an american president. throughout this month and in august, american history tv revisits 1974. this weekend, here the supreme court oral argument united nixon.the nixon -- v. right president it may be in how he reads the

constitution. but e-mail so be wrong. -- he may also be wrong. if he is wrong, who was there to tell him so? if there is no one, then the president of course is free to pursue his course of erroneous interpretations. what then becomes of our constitutional form of a government? >> watergate, 40 years later. on american history tv on c-span3. nation's governors are in nashville, tennessee, for the annual silver meeting -- summer meeting. vice president biden join them. chair is oklahoma governor mary fallin. this is about one hour 20 minutes.

thank you ladies and gentlemen for being very patient with us. one of the great benefits of being in leadership is the opportunity to be able to work with our leaders in washington, d.c.. the past two years our executive committee has had the privilege of meeting privately with both president and the vice president to talk about issues, to talk about national priorities and how we can all work together. the vice president himself has taken the lead on several administrative initiatives that require direct outreach and core nation with our states and our governors. i know i've had several one-to-one meetings, direct conversations with the vice president, as well as other governors in the room. is that direct conversation, the direct access that's been very beneficial to our individual states in helping us develop a better state and federal partnership. as the senator from delaware for 36 years, he is a leader on some

nation's most important domestic and international challenges. he served as chairman or ranking member at the senate judiciary committee for 17 years and chairman or ranking committee member on the senate foreign relations committee. and the 47th vice president of the united states, joe biden has continued his leadership on important issues facing the nation. the vice president was tasked with a mini the american recovery and reinvestment act at a time to which i know i personally called each and every governor to talk about the national economy and our state's economy. he also penny to draw on his foreign policy expertise, advising the president on a multitude of international issues. so ladies and gentlemen, it is our great pleasure at the national governors association to welcome the vice president of the united states, joe biden. [applause]

>> thank you all. please, please, please sit down. mary, thank you for the great introduction. as you stood, as you mentioned that i had the responsibility to implement the recovery act, and i got to meet with, speak with, multiple times as all of you, hey, how are you doing? [laughter] a lot of old friends. excuse me. and it reminded me of what lincoln and i used in the. it reminded me of what used to